Jump to content

Pete Holland

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Pete Holland's Achievements

  1. WR is a bit overrated. I would stick with the 18-55 and possibly a plastic cover.
  2. My ideal set-up would be: - 14mm f/2.8 for wide - 23mm f/2 for all-round photography - 50mm f/2 for portraits
  3. The 18-55 is a versatile 'all-rounder' that offers great image quality in a compact package, but the microcontrast, sharpness and bokeh will never be similar to the 'specialized' prime lenses and more expensive 16-55. However, we're getting into pixel-peeping territory there, because the image quality of the 18-55 is sufficient for most situations and applications - even large prints.
  4. 14mm+35mm seems like a perfect 2-lens combo for most situations. However, I think 23mm f2 is more suitable as a standard lens compared to the 35mm. What are your experiences/preferences?
  5. Short intro: I've been using the 18-55 extensively as my (only) X-T2 lens and it's a great lens indeed - versatile zoom range, OIS and compact. Nothing to complain as a first lens, really. But.. despite the general possibilities of this lens for family-day-outs and everyday situations, I sometimes I miss that creative 'pop' in my images - and it seems the 23mm f/2 can deliver just that. The reason why I'm looking into this particular prime is that I would like to develop and explore (black & white) street photography this year, and the primes seem much more suitable for unobtrusive and fast street photography. I would like to avoid having to use flash when photographing on the street (duh!), so the extra aperture stops of the 23mm + high ISO capabilities of the X-T2 + manual focus + RAW shooting should provide plenty of evening possibilities. Am I suffering from G.A.S. or is the 23mm f/2 a good first addition to my kit (e.g. before I look into wide + tele)? If any owners of both these lenses can share their experiences in a comment below, I'd highly appreciate it! Thanks!
  • Create New...