Marc G.

Ever seen the lens hood on the 16-55? It doesn't offer that much protection for a 77mm filter threaded front element. I bumped into stuff on weddings several times. Left 1 filter deeply scratched. I much rather use protective filters than deal with insurance and a broken lens.

No?

Use Hoya HMCs on all lenses. Saved my 16-55's front element a couple of times. Cheap, best UV filters in lenstip's test and no regrets or flare issues at all. I left the front caps in the boxes..

The 56mm is my workhorse. I will gladly use it over a zoom at a similar focal length ANY time as the zooms simply cannot compare to it. Whether you do need it or not, it comes down to you. You should know already, though, as you used the 85 on your nikon. Did the 70-200 make your 85 redundant?

The Zeiss Touit line, to me, is a big fraud. The 12 and 32 aren't optically corrected, as the XF14 and XF35 1.4 are, originally cost WAY more, are not built as good as the Fujinons and are not as good optically. The blue Zeiss logo on the side just triples the price tag, unrightfully so. Besides, the Touits are assembled by Fuji btw... The XF 35 1.4 is better at 5.6 than the Touit. Yep, good summary. I would never buy a Touit. Good decision. I'd use the original lens hood. It is of excellent quality and serves the purpose very well!

If you want to use the standard for landscapes, just go get the 35 1.4 and use it at 5.6 for a very even and extreme sharpness. Forget the Touit, not worth even its current price. The 35 f/2 is not really made for landscape. The digital distortion correction takes its toll for images where you need even sharpness out to the corners.

16 1.4, 35 1.4. That's it for me. Third lens? 18-55. Other setups I can think of: 12 Samyang, 18-55 35 1.4, 18-55 18-55, 90 Can't think of a scenario where I'd use a lens such as the 18-135. It's one of those lenses that seems to be able to do anything but does nothing really good...

This is due to a battery inside the camera. Leave a charged battery in the camera and wait 1-2 days. After that time, the battery of the buffer memory should be fully charged and should be able to remember your settings. I had 1 reset, too, and now it works like a charm.

Do-all-setup: 16/35 f2/90 Portrait: 23/56/90 Travel: 16/35/18-55

X-T1 (X-Pro2, soon) XF 16 XF 23 XF 35 f/2 XF 56 XF 90 XF 18-55 all in a ONA Brixton dark truffle. I'll add 2 of the new flashes as soon as they're available.

Very personal question. I'd always opt for the 16 1.4 over the zoom.

No aberration would be well controlled with an f/1 wide angle. It would probably cost close to 4000$ and would not be as good as the 16 1.4, which would defeat the purpose of having the 1.0 aperture. Requests such as this have no connection with reality. Wishful thinking at best. Mass-producing such a lens at an o.k. price with o.k. weight and o.k. dimensions is an unfulfillable task.

Yeah, and the versions he has are pretty simialar. f/3.5, f/4.0, f/4.x (in the 18-135) and f/2.4. f/1.2 sounds like a useful variety if one is into portraits.

Yeah but the 16-55 review is next to useless. They obviously have a faulty lens if that is the result. There's definitely a bigger optical difference between the 18-55 and 16-55. So their 18-55 is really good and the 16-55 really bad.

While I think 23/2 is perfectly reasonable, I think Fuji would rather opt for a 16 2.8 instead, to keep it more compact. After all, you hardly find a 24 1.4 24 2.0 and 24 2.8 in dslr systems (except when Nikon lately introduced the 24 1.8g)

Rumored new lenses: 18/2 update 33 1.0 120/2.8 macro more lenses like the 35/2 (compact, slower, electronically corrected) 200/2 2x Teleconverter 8 Fisheye Can't sign parts of your flash criticism. The EF-X500 is a weatherproof flash with HSS and enough power. I don't use a trigger system other than a simple yongnuo 603 thingy so I don't care about the flash communication between EF-X500s. The flash brings all the needed features. It's said to come on may.

Which is to be expected. The X system exists since 2012. But even after only 4 years, the service is still much faster than what I experienced with Leica. When you take the number of users and the time in existence into consideration, the Fuji service is fine. After all, it took decades for Canon and Nikon to create such a service system. You cannot expect the same thing from Fuji after 4 years. When they launch the FPS this year, it's still a miracle.

What a pointless thread. I've received excellent service from Fuji Germany. So generalizing your service experience for all Fuji service points is no less than narrow-minded, especially in combination with the rant/cancelling pre-order. Here, X series is serviced with priority. You receive a free loan camera for the time of the repair which is sent out the same day you tell them about the repair problem, so before they even have the camera. On the other side, I also used Leica and the customer care is one of the worst I have ever experienced. Clueless people, long repair times and 60% of the stuff I bought had to be sent in instantaneously. But do I think that it's always like that? No.

16-55 2.8 is the fastest lens, regarding AF speed. Of the lenses you own, it's the 16mm.

Or it just is a badly designed and overhyped/overrated lens.

Can't fault the lens for the focal length. That's a personal decision. Yet, technically is better than both 56s in every regard. It's as simple as that: Fuji's show-off lens, the masterpiece. When it comes to portraits, it depends on my mood. I either use just the 56 or 35+90. But the 90 is not only just a portrait lens. Due to the sharpness and the lack of optical aberrations it's also for brilliant for technical photography like landscapes, architectural details and is one of my most loved wedding lenses.

Not surprised here either... the only downside of the 90 is the niche focal length. Now Fuji needs to come out with other primes with the same performance in other focal lengths.

I'm not a "Knight of the Fuji realm". I'm being realistic. See, I became very technical when it comes to optics, when I switched to Leica. The philosophy of their lens design is quite interesting and I got into optical design. The result being that I like good optics and appreciate well thought-out design decisions. I switched to Fuji because of focus accuracy and thought I'd miss out on the optical perfection. Quite the opposite is true. If you ask me, some of Fujis current glass is as close to optical perfection as they can be for the price, size, weight. Now, enough with my background. You requested some criticism. I currently use/used in the past (and can therefore only comment on those items in detail): X-T1, 14mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35 1.4, 56mm, 90mm, 16-55, 50-140 / X-Pro1, 10-24, 18-55, 55-200, 16mm, 60mm. I also tested the 18mm thoroughly. For general purpose use, I think the 14, 16, 23, 35 (1.4), 56, 90, 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 are superb. I have a personal problem with the OIS version 1 (10-24, 18-55, 55-200) and avoid it. Version 2 (18-135, 50-140) is extremely good. Coma could be improved on the 16 but I think the Samyang 12/2 is a much better astro lens. I only have the 27 for a few days so final judgement is not out on this one, yet. My biggest gripe with the lens selection: there is no 18 f/1.4 R WR yet, a lens which I would buy instantly as it is my preferred wide angle (coming from a Leica 28/2 Summicron). A 33 1.0 will round out my system perfectly. My biggest gripes with the X-T1 are: - ISO 12800 RAW not available (fixed with future version I think) - dual card slots (fixed soon) - joystick for af point selection (fixed soon) - better flash system (hopefully fixed soon) - slightly bigger base grip for the X-T2 (hopefully fixed soon) - joystick on the vertical grip, too (hopefully coming with X-T2) I got more gripes with the bodies than with the lens selection. I could live with 23/56 and the 50-140 if I had to. But after a few years of analyzing the Leica M glass, I am still amazed at how good Fuji's XF lenses really are. The superb coatings, advanced optical cells (as none of those are older than 2012) and beautiful mechanics made me even forget my 50 1.4 Summilux ASPH which was my favorite lens. And last, I am sorry to tell you that I don't care much for a XF 23/1.8 or 2.0 which is smaller. I see the point for those who do, but the current offering is optically SUPERB and corrected for all relevant aberrations. Add a smaller hood and it's quite a neat package. I mostly photograph people and sometimes under adverse situations where I require large apertures. Fuji got my needs covered long time ago.

Why don't you just keep your polemic statements to yourself? It's totally inappropriate to talk about "Fuji can do no wrong"-love. You came here, expressed some indefensible statements and expect people to just support your crap? You obviously lack the background knowledge about optics that is required to even compare the 23 f/2 X100 lens to the XF 23 1.4 R and you didn't even handle the XF23. You quoted sources you don't even name and draw your own conclusions from those "reviews". And then keep ignoring people who suggest otherwise. And besides, I said enough critical things about Fuji products, in this thread and in the past. But you just bash for the sake of bashing, at least that's the impression I get from your statements. The X100 lens is something that I've used plentiful in the past and got rid of 2 times because I hated it. The XF18mm f/2 is another Fuji product that I criticize a lot, mainly because I love the 18mm FOV but the lens is not up to my standards (5% distortion, lesser resolution when compared to the 1.4 primes e.g.). The XF23 and XF27, on the other hand, are wonderful lenses that are optically quite good (27) and superb (23). So will you, for once, be sane and keep the discussion on a neutral level or will we see more polemic posts?

To give you a little reference as to how good the 23mm is: It is better than the 16mm (understandably so, as it is not as wide, so easier to correct optically), better than both 35's and as good as the 56 1.2. You clearly didn't use the 23mm yourself. Trusting internet information over user information (and you're getting plenty of that here) is just plain stupid. The constant ignoring of facts isn't helpful either. The XF 23 1.4 R doesn't leave a gap in the current lineup. Instead, it's one of the peaks. The 27 2.8, besides, isn't bad either. It's small, solidly built, sharp and focuses quite fast. It just doesn't offer f/1.4 or an aperture ring. Something I can forgive the lens which can be had for 191€ in Europe. Now, the 18mm is another story. Also, the 23 balances quite well. After all, it is smaller and lighter than the 56 1.2, which also balances well with a camera like the X-T1. And I don't hear much whining from users of X-Pro or X-E cameras when it comes to the 56 1.2. I had the X100 and X100s and still have the XF 23 1.4 R. While the XF is not my most favorite lens (just because 23mm isn't my most favorite focal length), it is M I L E S ahead of the 23mm f/2 of the X100 series, when it comes to sharpness wide open (& stopped down), optical correction for aberrations, close focus performance. The X100 series lens is clearly an optical compromise in many regards. Fuji didn't make that mistake twice and the XF 23 1.4 R is about as good as it gets in Fujis lens portfolio. The only lens to exceed everything else is the XF 90 f/2 R WR.