deva

Shooting in the rain is challenging regardless of the lens being WR... raindrops easily get on the front element... particularly when windy. And a WR designation does not mean the gear is immune to water... you still should be careful. I've shot in drizzly light rain, mist etc with my X-T1 and it was fine. I've also shot many times in the rain in the past without WR camera or lens. A little rain jacket/cover works well and feels more secure to me than the WR designation. Sometimes I've just used an umbrella. I suppose for me, shooting with the lens I want is more important than a WR designation. If there was a 23 1.4 MkII that was WR, I'd likely sell my current 23 to get it. But to switch to a different lens?? Not for me... but then I am biased in this case since if I could have 1 lens, I would much rather have a 23 than 35.

There is a reason Fuji put the 23 on the X100

I used to enjoy the more deliberate pace of shooting MF on film for landscapes but do not actually need the MF camera for work anymore. Still, I may buy a Fuji MFD depending on performance and available lenses. It would be a personal indulgence with the only partially valid excuse that I do make bigger prints from time to time.

I have both lenses and shoot a lot of street photography, including at night. The 56 is super sharp, fast, focuses well in low light... a fantastic lens. The 60 is way too clumsy in that situation. Actually, it could be decent focussing manually. I use the 60 for portfolio work shooting drawings, paintings etc. I use it in MF and it is suitable because it can easily do small pieces and details all with one consistent lens. I'm happy to have both.

I like my Gorilla Pod... It has definitely been worth the cost. I do lots of photography of small things and sometimes in small places. There have been situations where nothing else worked. I would not buy it in place of my regular tripod... which I use more often. I was shooting paintings for someones portfolio last week and for that I want a full size tripod where I can comfortably stand and look through the viewfinder. For wandering around the city, I hardly take a tripod anymore. With the high iso performance and OIS these days, I can almost always find a creative way to hold the camera still if needed in the ever decreasing situations it is required. These days it is only if I have a specific mission that I know the tripod would be useful that I take it.

I expect an image quality from a cropped 200 f2.8 that is good enough that I will be entirely satisfied... and whatever lens Fuji comes up with, I'm confident it will live up to that expectation (for me). So I'm not thinking there is no difference, but the difference is of no significance to me. The image quality of even cheap cameras today is really quite good. Hell, I've had multiple images published that were shot on point and shoot cameras and of the various comments people made, none were about the technical image quality.

The Fuji 10-24 is excellent. The OIS is solid. I've managed sharp photos at 1/4 second handheld (braced against a wall etc). For a diverse range of indoor settings, the zoom range is useful. The lens has very little distortion.

I have both and would not part with either... if I had to choose, and had no other wide angle lenses, I would get the 10-24. I love the super wide angle and frequently shoot in the wide range of the 10-24. It really depends on the person and the tasks at hand. I recently shot a benefit concert and the 16 was perfect. OIS does not help with the fast subject movement and f4 was pushing ISO too high. The 16 1.4 handled it great. Like I said, no way I want to part with either... they are both great lenses!

For me, the 16 is a no-brainer over the 14... 2 stops faster is a lot, especially since I often shoot in low light and neither has OIS. The 16 also focuses very close so it works as a macro-ish lens and I do a lot of close focus shots with it. The 16 is also weather sealed. That matters to me as well as am often out in poor weather and dusty places. I have the 16 and instead of the 14 I have the 10-24 which is only 1 stop slower but which has OIS so I can use it handheld in lots of situations the 14 wouldn't work.

I haven't purchased a Fuji 35 yet... For street photography, I prefer the 23 1.4 (which I love) over a 35 as far as field of view so I have not felt in a hurry to get a 35. I might get the newer f2... but I may also hold out for a 35 1.4 v2

It was a simple question... and (IMO) it is on topic. I'm not going to buy a 300/f2 Fuji lens for sports photography. I guess hardly anyone would. If I were doing sports photography, I'd be using Nikon or Canon. Their high speed AF is better... At that level of investment I would not risk otherwise.

I also prefer having two bodies be the same.

I'd be interested in a tilt/shift lens that focused close... 1:2

Are you planning to buy that $10,000+ lens?

Well, 12 FPS is the same as the new D5... and of no interest to me personally... I'd rather stay at 8 (which is still plenty fast) and keep the camera the current size. I didn't switch from Nikon hoping that the X-T1 replacements would become DSLR's is size and horsepower. I would like the X-T2 to be the same basic size as the X-T1

The Nikon D500 has a frame rate of 10. The current X-T1 is already 8. I'm doubtful there is even a need for a big grip to up the frame rate to compete with the D500. The mirrorless doesn't need the extra muscle to match the speed cause there is no need to move the mechanical mirror. Mirrorless has a fundamental advantage there.

I love the 10-24 because for me there is no wide angle that is too much! It has OIS and is only 1 stop slower than the 14 so in basically every situation, I'd rather have the 10-24 than the 14 The 16 1.4 on the other hand, is significantly faster and it also has very close focusing so it would win for me over the 14 as well. That is why I have the 10-24 and the 16 and the 23... I thought about getting a X100T, but cameras change so much and sensors improve so fast still... I'd rather invest the money into good glass.

My 56 1.2 is remarkably sharp.

I do not consider it a 'retro' argument. I'm not sentimental about the past. I don't have nostalgia nor care about some social image as an 'old school' photographer. I like the X-T1 because it is effective for me. I value the physical dials not because they look like the past, but because they work better for me. Same with the small size and light weight. Those are two of the main reasons I switched to Fuji. If I wanted a big grip and vertical shutter, I'd have stuck with Nikon.

I love my X-T1 exactly as it is... I am 100% against making it bigger, adding a second battery, second shutter etc. I love my X-T1 because it doesn't have those things... because it is small and agile. I loved both my Nikon FM2 and FE2. Since then I had increasingly fancier cameras and though there was a convenience for work. The simple visceral pleasure of my FM2 is still my favorite. The X-T1 is the closest to it since then. When the X-T2 comes out I will be buying 2... that is if it is the same as the X-T1 except it has the new sensor, processor and joy stick from the X-Pro2. Its current size and weight is one of the best possible features.

I don't want the grip and I don't want a second shutter button... the X-T1 is small and agile enough that I have no trouble with the existing shutter button whether shooting horizontal or vertical.

At least one part of the test looks intriguing... the X-Pro2 is significantly faster than the X-T1 which presumably used the exact same lens. Hard to mess that test up!

16 1.4 23 1.4 56 1.2 and am eagerly awaiting the 120 macro

What you are saying makes no sense. Nobody is talking about putting a high MP sensor in an X-T1 or X-Pro1. A medium format Fuji would of course need a processor capable of dealing with the extra data. That might already be there with the X-Pro2 processor. Also, Mirrorless is not slower than an SLR. It is slower in some ways and faster in others. Mirrorless does not need to move the mirror so it can easily have faster frame rates for example. The speed of reviewing shots has nothing to do with whether the camera is Mirrorless or SLR... Autofocus is faster with the SLR's but for many people, the difference is already insignificant and the X-Pro2 is looking like it's a solid step faster than the X-T1.

Yeah, this is the possibility that interests me... I would prefer that sensor size (33 x 44) to the bigger one. Both for cost, and size/mobility... especially mobility.