pcovers

If you said you could afford two Fuji models, I would go with the X100F and the XT20 (don't overlook this option) or XT3. If you can only have one, and you wants as small a footprint as you can get while still having some lens options, I would go with the X-E3. If you are are certain that a 23mm (35mm fov on full frame) will suit the vast majority of your needs and you can only have one Fuji, I would go with the X100F. The XT3 is the largest and certainly gets you away from the concept that the X100F and the XE3 provides. However, having owned all the models listed above, I don't find the XT3 to be as large as some articles and reviews suggest. I guess it is all in the feel of the beholder, but I was expecting a feel or experience that was significantly different than the XT20 and, while larger, I don't find it any more challenging or difficult or cumbersome to take the XT3 anywhere I took the XT20. But, as with all things, others may have a different impression. X100F if you are absolutely certain 23mm is all you need and you like the retro rangefinder look XE3 if you want the smallest footprint that lets you change lenses. (XE3 is a sweet camera) XT3 (or XT20) if you want traditional SLR look and additional features at a cost

I have quite a few much more expensive XF lenses. I like them all. Some, such as the 16mm, are just very special. However, I have no issue with using this XC lens anytime. It has produced images that hold their own right next to images captured from the much higher priced X lenses. The only downside I see to this lens is speed and the plastic components, and most of the time, this is not an issue for me. I like that it is light and that the IS seems to work very well. I have no particular issues with slow focus. I can capture birds in flight just fine as well. These are just a couple of images from an overcast day in not ideal conditions. They have been 1:2 cropped and downsized so lose sharpness. Still, I like the images and when the conditions for good exposure the lens produces wonderful results. I like the XC 16-50mm as much. Very nice images with that lens. I compare them to images from my 18-55mm and they hold up very well, only lose on speed and build materials. I wold not describe this is a lens that is good for the money. I would say it is a very nice lens capable of producing sharp contrasty images for a price that is significantly lower than the similar focal ranges in the XF version. However, you give up speed and quality of construction materials (plastic vs metal). I would not say the result from the glass is much different from its XF counterparts zooms in these ranges.

As with the OP, I was left feeling unsatisfied with the lens in general. Mine was not particularly sharp. Or, maybe the better way to put is was that it was uninspiring on most categories while being acceptable in most as well. I have found the cheaper XC 16-50mm to offer more pleasing results in that zoom range. I realize it gives up light gathering but I don't use it in ways that that much matters.

I don't doubt the experiences folks have with their lenses. However, the nature of this lens is that it is really very sharp. To use an over used cliché, it is tack sharp across the focal range. You need only look at the many examples on this and other Fuji forums as well as flickr. I would say if you are not getting those kinds of results, it is either a bad copy of the lens or some other issue that may need further looking into. I would not settle for a 100-400mm that was not sharp. I would send it back and replace. Good luck working it out.

16mm is my favorite XF lens for the reasons you cite. I too would characterize it as unique, but only in very good ways.

I have the 35 and 23 f1.4, both of which are terrific lenses. However, my favorite in rendering, contrast, color, sharpness is still the 16 f1.4. I can see how the variances in the lenses may make one person prefer one over the other. It's all good. But I am really enamored by what the 16mm produces.

I have the 23 1.4 as well. It is a great lens. It doesn't go quite as wide as I often want, and took the leap and added the 16mm. As much as I really like the 23, the 16 is even more impressive to me. It just looks sharper and more contrasty and, of course, can do wider where wider is important. One of the best surprises with the 16 is the remarkable close focus ability it brings to the table. You can really manage the depth of field options with the great close focus it offers. And the close up shots with the 16 are tack sharp. I reach for my 16 more than my 23, even though I really like the 23 very much, too.

I'm quite new to Fuji, having just recently purchased the X100T. I come from, and still am, an Micro 4/3 user. In my view, I don't see the X70 and the X100 as competitors. If I had decided one or the other was a good fit for what I wanted, I would not think the other was a reasonable replacement. Both cameras are quite nice, but I would say different markets in terms of filling what the prospective buyer is looking for. While I like the M4/3 platform, I chose the X100T over the Pen-F, and could not be more pleased with the choice. I am an old schooler, and the combination of old school charm, exceptional image quality, modern technology have all been perfectly combined in this camera. It makes we want to take a camera with me every where I go. I could easily do that with one of my M4/3 cameras, but there is some reason that this Fuji calls to me to do it while the others don't. I get exceptional image quality out of my M4/3 lenses, and it is a platform I am happy with. But this Fuji X100T brings an intangible to the table that makes it stand alone in my collection. I really like this camera.