Marc G.

I'd get that in a heartbeat if it has improved AF over the 35 1.4 and is as good at 1.0 as the current 1.4 is wide open.

16/56. wide and detail.

Fuji's customers are not accustomed to the extreme prices that come with small badge, large aperture telephoto primes or zooms. A zoomlens making use of the Fresnel technology and being f/4 constant would probably cost way beyond 5000€ for Fuji, as they will sell a lot less than Canikon. Currently I just don't see a valid market for a large aperture, expensive telephoto zoom. The f/4.5-5.6 is likely to be the best solution, which is why Fuji will produce it. The 100-400 can still fit in a proper photo backpack without the need for one of those cumbersome glass taxi type backpacks. People need to realize that Fuji doesn't have the market share of bigger companies, yet still acts as if they had a bigger market share. They're just not there yet, when it comes to the customer numbers to produce a 135/2, 200/2.8 or similar sport/wildlife-pro-considered lenses. We should consider ourselves lucky that Fuji does provide us with a 150-600 equivalent. A very good OIS and the low noise are likely to help future users overcome the disadvantage of the slow aperture (although f/5.6 isn't really all that slow when looking at such a long focal length... it's 1 stop slower than the standard 600 f/4).

I've used my X-T1 under drizzle and light rain for hours and it worked and works flawlessly. Even the 10-24 survived a tropical rainstorm unprotected for 15 minutes. After those partly involuntary "tests" I completely trust the X-T1 to be usable under any circumstances that happen to come upon me. Certainly NOT a gimmick to me. That said, I also used my Leica M9 under similar circumstances and it survived. That camera is not specified as being weather sealed.

The OIS in the 50-140 is well calibrated. I didn't feel the need to turn it off. Due to the focal length I would even turn it on at 1/500th but during my time with the lens I left it on permanently except when on a tripod. I never had the issue of the OIS ruining shots that I had with the 18-55 and 10-24.

Not I would never do that. The 1 stop loss of light is just too much of a hassle for me. I often shoot in very low light (weddings) and losing 1 stop of light makes the difference between a picture and crap. I also dislike the fact that you lose PDAF. Besides, I write that, knowing that the 56 1.2 R is my most used lens, by far.

I think one user said that Fujis lens releases get boring: straight from the launch to the pre-order to the camera bag. You could be forgiven for wanting a technically as close to perfect lens as it gets. The 90 sure is one of those rare breed of lenses.

Perfect for portrait shoots: 35 56 90 Perfect for my traveling: 16 35 90 Perfect for events: 16 23 56 Those are of course my perfect combos. It all depends on what you're doing. There's probably no 3 prime combo to fit them all. If there was one, it would probably be 16 23 56/90 for me.

Yep, and the 16 is responsible for me selling the 10-24 There's a big difference between lenses that just work, do their job and deliver good results, and lenses that get us all excited with specs, look and behavior. That's what the 16 1.4 is to me. I wouldn't want to go back to slower and wider lenses.

I don't know why people always yearn for IBIS. Yes, the olympus version is quite good. But it has downsides. Also, the bigger the sensor, the less effective the IBIS gets. While its supposed to have 5 stops benefit in M43 bodies, it only has about a 2 stop benefit on the A7II. Now 2 stops, that's not a lot and I can definitely pass on that if it costs more, which_it_will. Only the 50-140 has OIS of all the XFs I have. I'm doing very fine without IBIS/OIS mostly.

mmh... I chose the zoom over the 14mm in the beginning and now that the 16mm is out and I sold the zoom I still don't feel any need for the 14mm. It's quite good but I never wanted it.. Kinda never appeared on my "want-it-list".

Good thing is all fujinon lenses look pretty much alike #stealthmodeon

My savings, my decision. Easy as that. I don't waste money on crap and she doesn't care all that much since I got away from Leica

Fast especially in low light. It's necessary for quick acquisition of critical focus in order to capture fleeting moments. Sometimes under low light conditions. Might not be needed by many but I do. 16 and 23 do fine for me in wide angle area. Still wish I had a 18mm.

I'm not a street shooter. My dream 18mm would be used for landscapes, architecture, travel but mainly for reportage/documentary and weddings. I need a fast and reliable AF for this purpose. The 18mm is a good lens, but it isn't good enough for what I'm used to with 16/23/56 primes.

Pancake compromises. No f/1.4 Resolution across the frame Slow AF Optical correction (5% distortion in a prime is a joke... one of the compromises of the pancake construction)

Everybody has their own perfect lens to have that probably doesnt exist in any lens manufacturer's portfolio. My dream XF is a high performance 18mm f/1.4. But the idea of a high performance 28mm (equivalent) lens only seems to make sense for Leica. The 35mm you're looking for exists as a 35mm f/2 IS Canon lens. It wouldnt make sense for Fuji, at this point, to produce a slower IS alternative. It would eat away sales from either X100 series or XF 23 1.4.

Oh boy, and the FF comes up again. Can't we just keep that crap inside a box and bury it somewhere?

I'd always get the 56 first and only then would I go for the 90. I think the 56 is a better all purpose portrait lens

I still think you should try the 16 1.4. It opens up a whole new world of wide angle photography with the close focusing limit of 15 cm (the lens hood often comes in contact with the actual subject...). I had the 10-24, sold it. Wasn't 100% happy with optical performance and especially with the stabilizer. If you have to have the 10mm focal length it might be worth it for you. I wasn't nearly as happy with it, as I am with the primes and the 2.8 zooms.

Which was to be expected, given the extreme difference between f/1.2 and f/2. It might have even been cheaper but a 90mm is probably selling in less quantities than the 56mm.

The 16-55 is a beautiful, albeit heavy lens. I like it a lot, though I reach for for the primes for personal shooting. I can certainly recommend the 16-55. Fast, sharp, well made, weather sealed.

I dearly love my Compagnon Messenger (German leather bag brand named Compagnon Bags). Holds a lot but ages beautifully. For nature stuff I use a f-stop Tiloba BC.

I currently own 16/23/35/56 and 16-55/50-140. I owned 10-24, 18-55, 55-200. Pretty satisfied currently but kinda curious about the... - 90 f/2 - 1.4x TC - 35 f/1.0 (maybe... some day)

Quite obvious,, I think. I basically doubled the 16-55's focal lengths with primes (16/23/35/56) as thats my main focal length area. Zoom is used for reportage or other critical situations where speed is key. Primes are used for anything else