peripheral visionary

I prefer primes. Combinations 14 + 35 + 90 or 23 + 56 are the classic combinations. 

If Fuji make a fisheye I would prefer they go down the Sony route, and make a normal lens with an optional adapter.
 
 More lenses would sell, then the people that want the fisheye adapter could buy the optional adapter

Congratulations on your choice - you'll love it, I'm sure. For a long time I used just 3 Fuji lenses; the 18mm f2, 35mm f1.4 and 55-200mm zoom. Although I have since invested in many of the other lenses in the family, these are probably still my basic favourite 3. I do mostly landscape and building photography.
 
BTW you might wonder why the 18mm rather than the 14mm, 16mm or 10-24. It's because the 18mm is a perfect balance of size and quality. The other wide-angle lenses are much bigger and heavier.

14mm is a lot wider than 16mm, and 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm. Personally i find 10mm a little too wide and that can be a little distracting from the subject. While the 10-24 can of course go all the way to 24mm too, it is a bit too large for my taste. It really depends on your wishes, but i would want to keep it compact for travel, and don't mind a little selective framing when necessary. But really, 14mm (21mm equiv) already is beyond wide. Just try it out in a store you'll see. For any other APSC system or MFT there isn't even a native prime this wide available except for third party options. And speaking of .. there is that 12mm from Samyang/Rokinon.
 
This post below is about IR filters, but you can actually see the difference in FoV between 14 and 18 very well, as i assume they were taken from the same spot:
http://fujixsystem.blogspot.nl/p/fuji-infrared-lens-tests.html

I just bought the 35mm f1.4 used, and despite the noisy AF I just love the lens. Actually I find the AF quite decent on my x-pro 1. 
 
So, now I have the option of buying a used 23mm f1.4 to about half the price, and would really like to have it, but I wonder if the focal lengths are to close.
 
Would it be better to go for something wider or are there enough difference between the two to warrant a purchase?
 
 
As of now I have the 18-55 and the 35 f1.4 in my arsenal. The zoom only being used for snapshots. I like the rendering of primes better even though the 18-55 actually is quite good.
 
Look forward to your opinions/advice :-)

18-55 f/2.8- 4 (travel lens & video recording)
35 f/2 (low light & portrait)
90 f/2 (sports/action & portrait)

The choice of a lens is always a personal thing and depends on your style of shooting. May be it helps if I describe my yourney.
- 18-55 came with the camera, is my daylight general purpose lens
- 55-200 came two weeks after I bought the camera because I was missing the reach that I was
used from my point & shoot. IMHO this lens is a very good compromise in quality,
reach, speed, weight and price. It is/was my zoo lens.
- 23/1.4 my low light lens. In some low light situations 2 stops better than the 18-55 are
really helpful. Some times I wonder if I need a 35 mm lens. But instead of changing
lenses I prefer to zoom with my feet or to crop from the 23 mm. I am sure, at one
point my GAS will win and I will buy a 35.
- 56/1.2 for portraiture and bokeh ("Ah, the bokeh" as Milandro would say )
In real life I use it much less than I wanted to. It gets it's time when I am
shooting a concert from in front of the stage.
- 18/2.0 planned as stealthy street lens. In fact, I think it is not that much less
conspicuous than the 18-55. So I do not use it a lot any more.
- 12/2 Samyang, for people in narrow environments, people with a lot of background, landscape
- 100-400 as better zoo lens and to satisfy my GAS. The quality is very good but the thing
is very heavy, I mean, really really heavy compared to other Fuji equipment.
At the moment I am a little bit torn between the comfort of the 55-200 and the
longer reach of the 100-400 and I carry both with me when I go to the zoo.
Stupid, I know.
 
BTW, for me the difference in quality between all the lenses I have mentioned is so small that it will never really improve (or degrade) the overall quality of any picture I have taken. But then, I am more into composition, light, timing and colors than the last bit of sharpness.

Why limit to Fuji lenses? I like the Zeiss 12 (wider than Fuji 14 and at least as sharp), Fuji 23, Fuji 56

I am at a juncture that I believe many of you are, or have been, at. Every now and again I find myself 'lost in tech' and need to ground my self again to improve my photography and focus on the things that really matter, not f stops, focal lengths, micro-contrast but photography;  painting with light.
I currently have a handful of fuji lenses, need to sell some and probably need to buy some to achieve something I believe will be better...maybe not. As we all know, but don't always admit to, the most important piece of gear we own is the 12 inches behind the camera. My best photos ever taken were on equipment seriously lacking in 'currentless'
So, to get to the crunch.... I want a selection of gear to capture my life events, in decent quality, to help others capture theirs through small photo shoots and to record beautiful places I have experienced. Could be the bar, the theatre, the wonders of the world or my garden.. it's all available.
 
I'll ignore my collection of film camera's for the minute and focus on Fuji X-series, why were here...
 
I have read reviews on all the lenses currently available and have decided on setting out my stage as buying the best I can afford without spending a fortune, I work in a normal job!!
 
I started out with an X100 and used it alongside my Canon 20D, and then 5DII full frame with some nice glass. I have now sold all Canon gear (apart from 430EXII speedlight) and ended up with X-Pro2 and X100T.
 
The X-pro2 is an amazing camera, my excuses diminish shooting with it.
I can split the rest of this blurb into 2 sections - my advice and my outstanding queries
 
Anything I say is purely user based. I dont really pixel peep, check for distortion levels and far corner sharpness when I dont look there..I want to see a nice looking capture of a nice thing, end.
 
Some focal lengths are definitely more suitable to the success of what you set out to achieve, nothing more, nothing less. I personally, and it's personal, like to capture, street, scenic, people images with a smattering of wildlife thrown in, so have based my lens selections on it...apart from a couple of them that came my way.
 
The widest I own is the 18mm, a fairly dis-respected lens, I love it, small discreet and nearly all my scenic stuff shot thought it. At f8 with a ND10 filter I have captured some beautiful images, well at least I like them..
 
I have the 27mm pancake bought as part of the X-pro1 promotion but have only used it for a handful of shots. I think its the lack of aperture ring on this FL that puts me off, a big reason for coming to Fuji was the lovely manual ring....more later on a lens I have bought today that hasn't!!
It has a great deal of sharpness but the f2.8 on this FL doesn't give a lot of scope of creating a nice background blur. It is however a great lens for setting at f5.6 or f8, zone focussing and just clicking away. Its quite liberating not thinking about the camera
 
The X100T following on from my X100 confirmed to me the usefulness of the more that useful FOV but I still went ahead and bought the 23mm f2 even though I already had it!! I convinced myself that I could leave my X100 at home and still have the FL when it suited me?? Kinda works as it does give me a smaller 'foot print' The 23 f2 on the X-pro2 is sharper and better contrast than the X100T at f2 but comes with baggage, the X100T is where it's at. Difficult to explain but feels so good. I have an olympus 35SP and a Rollie 35S that yields similar feelings.
 
On the 35mm front I own the f1.4 and the f2, the 1.4 came first on a instinctual ebay purchase one boozy night, I do like it but wanted the f2 so WEX helped me out. The form factor of the f2 is nice on the x-pro and the images are sharp and colourful, strangely almost too much. The 1.4 seems more 'natural', there is a very high chance I will sell the f2 as the subject matter I shoot doesn't demand the faster focus etc
 
I bought the 18-55 second hand, still have it but cant get excited. It allows flexibility and saves me moving my feet, but pics are only recording whats there, difficult to add artistic impression. I might use it for Thailand to record my holiday but will need some nice primes to capture it beautifully.
 
Now onto the the longer focal lengths...this is where it gets difficult for me. I bought the 56mm f1.2 as I needed a fast, short tele for a wedding, what a lens!!! I love it. The rendition whether optically perfect or not, is amazing. Once you get used to the razor thin DOF and the huge aperture/shutter speed selection the images it gathers are outstanding, it's 1.2 so I want to use it at 1.2. It is bulky but coming from a DSLR/Medium format film background it's insignificant. I'll ask a question later on the 50mm f2
I bought the XC 50-230mm today after much research and the reluctance to spend such a lot of money on the 55-200mm for something I only occasionally use. I'm going to Thailand later this year and doing a bit of nature park stuff. Hopefully it will help me yield decent images of creepy crawly, furry, jumpy things.
The most fun I have just now with longer FL's is the veritable Nikkor 105 f2.5 and the Zeiss 135mm f3.5. Both the lenses on the X-pro2 are amazing, they take some practice but with the focus peaking and EVF the results can be superb. If fact my favourite butterfly photo was through the Nikkor, the smooth rendition and colour reproduction  is to be lusted over. Hopefully the 50-230 wont make me sell them..
 
Onto my request for help
 
This week I went camping to a beautiful location, The Island of Mull on the west coast of Scotland. I was changing lenses way too often, lovely scenery with the 18 or 23 then the Zeiss 135 for the Golden Eagles. In the towns the pace was pretty slow so I managed to get some lovely shots of Tobermory harbour with the 23mm. I do wish I had the 50mm f2 at times though for detail capture around the town. I want to go prepared for Thailand with the right kit, I felt stressed on Mull getting the right gear together which did impact on my holiday, in Thailand i would like stress free so what do I take?
 
The 18-55/50-230 plus a fast short sounds the best combo, what do you think?
 
I have asked this forum on this before but without my experiences, please excuse me.
 
If you want me to share some pictures captured with the above lenses let me know
 
Please let me know your thoughts
 
Cheers

The 35mm is the only lens I could not live without.
For me it is the perfect lens for low light/Street portraits with or without a Shallow DOF, and I have used it in a studio for portrait shoots.
 
For street I have never really had an issue zooming out with my feet if it was needed for framing, however for cityscapes (especially on a recent visit to New York) , I find the 18mm a better focal length.
 
I do not own the 23mm but it is also not a lens I intend to get, I guess I am just happy using "one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography" as my go to lens
 
I'm also a believer in finding a way to get your shots with the equipment you have

As for me, the initial three primes for X-Pro 1 are all that man needs.
But with new lenses appearing, I think that 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 are great combo. Add 16/1.4 and 90/2 to previous three and you will get the best combo out of ANY digital system you can imagine (including Leica M family). 
Zeiss Touit 12mm is the best option for non-Fujinon lens too. Add Touit 32mm if you don't like the original 35mm (but honestly both of these lenses are like apples and oranges).

.
 
 

Mars attacks by Christoph, auf Flickr
 
 
:.

X-E2 + XF 56/1.2 ... :cool:
 

XE210475_2 by Enzio Harpaintner, auf Flickr

Rhesus macaque photographed in eastern Thailand. Admittedly this image was taken in a zoo but this guy wasn't an inmate, he was a visitor. The only difference bentween me and him was that I paid for my ticket while he and his freinds just jumped over the back wall and proceeded to ransack the place.
 
Photographed with the 55-200mm lens on an X-T1.

With my X-T1 I shoot mostly travel and family, some landscape, no wildlife or sports.
 
I have four XF lenses: 14, 18-55, 23, and 90.  I could be talked into getting a 56, but I really don't need it.