Marc G.

The 56 APD is a niche lens with far more downsides than advantages. Loss of PDAF, 1 T-stop, gain of slightly more DoF, higher price tag and a change in color reproduction are heavy hitters when compared to a slightly better bokeh (and only wide open and only when the situation allows the benefit to show.

Want bokeh? Go for the 35 1.4, rather than the 60 2.4 or the other manual lenses. Skip either of the manual lenses. If you want a semi-macro option, look at the 60 2.4. Forget adapted solutions. If you buy a cheap adapter, you accept a compromise in image quality and most vintage lenses aren't all that good. By sticking a cheap adapter in the front, you reduce IQ even further. And a good adapter costs more than most vintage glass. Stick to Fuji's own lenses. You mostly get the same color reproduction, get AF and Fuji's glass is just some of the market's finest.

You're mixing up a few things. The X-T10 is the entry level version of the X-T1. This was decided by Fuji. They obviously thought that the battery grip is a more advanced feature, suitable only for the flag ship model, so they left out the battery grip contacts. It wasn't the other way round. Fujifilm communicated this more than once. After all, they left out the ISO dial and they added the AUTO switch, a feature obviously more suited for an entry level camera. Technically, both cameras perform on an identical level but the UI is different, which makes all the difference. And yes, I choose tools based on the factual features they offer. On the X-T1, I needed a battery grip. So even if the X-T10 was already on the market when I bought the X-T1s, I would have still gone for the X-T1 because it features the optional battery grip. Nothing funny about that, but rather rational thinking. Besides, you're the only one who is arguing in an emotional way. Maybe you should calm down and start discussing in an objective way. Feeling offended because someone is calling your tool entry level is not the correct response.

Actually, the majority of X-T1s I see have grips on them.

I don't get it. It's so simple: want battery grip? -> X-T1. No need for battery grip ever? -> X-T10. Done. Besides, not all Canikon cameras are provided a battery grip as far as I know.

My setup changed quite a bit. 2 X-T1 turned into 2 X-Pro2 (imo the best wedding camera money can buy you at the moment). And regarding lenses, I currently use the 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 56 1.2 and 50-140 2.8. With 2 YN flashes, 2 triggers a boat load of batteries, sd cards and a few other things that's the whole kit.

Just don't go wider than 23mm and you're fine.

The X-T1 is their flagship camera, while the X-T10 is the entry level consumer camera. Only the flagship gets the benefit of having such a high level accessory. It's as easy as that.

I look at that picture and the only thing I can see is a crime committed by the photographer.

16 23 56

This is a moot point. All ONA bags look expensive and modern/hipsteresque. If you want to look cheap, this is not your kind of brand. I'm coming from Leica and this whole discussion about camerabags-that-dont-look-like-camerabags-so-thiefs-will-skip-you is pointless and has been led in the leica forums so many times. If you pull out your camera once, the whole camouflage is gone anyway. So who cares? I rather carry something I like and be careful when it comes to large crowds.

I always wondered why the images from the 16-55 looked slightly harsh, until I found out that the lens suffers severely from CA. Those CA get automatically corrected in LR and leave white edges which made for a harsh look. I sold mine after a year of much use. I prefer the look of the primes any day. Not because of the larger aperture but because how clean the images look.

35 1.4 56 1.2

That depends. I find the 18 and 35 to offer superb artistic qualities. Especially the 35 is sharp enough wide open for portraits and stopped down to 5.6 it acts as a sharp-across-the-frame landscape lens. Offering lenses in the portfolio that do multiple things rather than just sharpness is a blessing for photographers. Maybe you're too much down the technical route?

I see no reason to update the 10-24 yet. It came out 2 years ago and is still to be considered a brand new lens by any standards. I can see the need for WR but I think a 23/2 WR and 56 with a slower aperture are first to arrive. Also, there's a lot of Fujis R&D people working on medium format and lenses so I wouldn't be surprised if there's hardly anything happening regarding the WR UWA zoom.

10-24, 12 and 14... sounds a bit dense. Travel, landscape, street... hmm... I would try to go for: 10-24 f/4 or 16 1.4 (depending on your needs. I found the 10-24 to be an excellent travel lens) 35 f/2 WR 60 macro or 55-200 (you either want the macro for details or you go for focal lengths with the zoom)

Dude, the 56 came out in early 2014, no reason to update it whatsoever. It's fast enough on the X-Pro2.

Basically speaking: yes. X-Pro1, X-M1, X-A1, X-A2 are lacking in that department. X-T1/X-E2 after FW 4.0, X-E2s and X-T10 are better and the X-Pro2 tops it. Still, I have no explanation for the fact that the 35 1.4 is the oldest and fastest lens that I own. What do you mean by focus assist modes?

I have found the following things from usage in good light and low light (X-Pro2 findings marked separately): Lenses used extensively: 10-24, 16-55, 18-55, 50-140, 14, 16, 23, 35 1.4, 35 2.0, 56, 90 Lenses currently in possession: 18-55, 16, 23, 35 1.4, 56, 90 16-55 is faster than the 50-140, slightly faster than the 18-55. I found the 10-24 to be fast in good light but, due to the aperture, drops in speed at low light. The 14 is very fast and on the same level as the 35 2.0 imo. Findings on the X-Pro2: 35 1.4 is faster than the 35 2.0. I don't know what they did to the 1.4 but the improved AF on the Pro2 makes this thing compact-camera-quick. I can just press the shutter down and the camera snaps into focus instantly. No delay whatsoever. Even with the f/2 it had a slight focus delay. When the light fades, the 35 1.4 is far ahead of the 2.0 which is to be expected due to the aperture difference. The 1.4 definitely is a damn speed demon. The performance on the Pro2 even tops the speed boost the 1.4 got when FW 4.0 arrived on the X-T1. 16 and 23 are both faster than the 56 and 90 with the order: 16 23 90 56 from fast to not as fast. From my experience, I cannot support Fujis chart. I couldn't believe just HOW GOOD the AF on the 35 1.4 is on the X-Pro2. They even drastically improved tracking with the 35 1.4 and 56 1.2. I can now confidently track wide open and get 9 out of 10 shots in focus consistently. The final list for my lenses would look something like that: 35 1.4 14 2.8 / 35 2.0 16-55 50-140 16 23 18-55 / 10-24 90 56 Putting the 35 1.4 in the top spot may not suit everyone's opinion. But it's the fastest focusing lens I have and multiple events and portrait shoots support my opinion. I have no idea what Fuji has been doing to that lens since 2012 but they just keep injecting some weird digital steroid stuff into that little thing.

For having customers that send back equipment being perfectly fine. The XF90-rattles-when-being-shaken-"issue" has approximately 10-20 threads in this forum alone and is the #1 issue-that-isn't-an-issue reported about the 90. I could understand when someone asks about it when the unit arrives and the user is unsure about it. But instantly sending back 2 units without researching?

Good frickin lord... The focus group of the 90mm is controlled by a magnetic linear motor. Without power, the focus group is, within the defined space for it, a little loose. This has been reported a few dozen times in each and every damn Fuji forum. You either never heard of the search function in a forum or just don't inform yourself about a new piece of gear beforehand. I'm feeling sorry for B&H.

3-4 lenses? That's a tough one. I shoot weddings, portraits and a bit of everything as private stuff. 35 1.4, as I simply adore this lens for the rendering, size and AF speed on the X-Pro2 56 1.2, as this is my workhorse lens, does roughly 30% of my photos. 90 2.0, as I can't live without it. Technically, the best Fuji lens out there. 16 1.4, as my wide angle. At the moment, I also own the 23 1.4 and 18-55. I could live without those, to be honest. I'd miss the 18-55 quite a bit, though. You could certainly get through weddings with that setup. Though, I would probably sneak in a midrange zoom, just to make sure.

Also, the 18mm is an affordable option to pair with the 35, so you don't lose the wide angle. I'd recommend the combination of 18 - 35 - 90. And I'd pick the 35 1.4.

Sharpness is not the most valuable property of a lens. When it comes to portraits, the whole look is more important. That's where the 56 1.2, the 56 1.2 APD even more so, and the 90, also even more so, shine. I used the 50-140 extensively for a year but I simply didn't like it for people work. It's fine for sports and events but with portraits, primes reign supreme. That being said, the 90 is even sharper, than the zoom.

Quality filters don't necessarily cost a fortune. Lenstip tested clear glass filters for flare resistance, transmission and general quality. You'd be surprised.