Nero

I never really had focus issues with my copy (an original pre-order copy which I have since sold), but I did have some very poor contrast issues with anything in the distance. It seemed to be very poor in dealing with having a lot of air between you and a subject, even if it wasn't a visibly hazy day. Whether I focused in the foreground with a very small aperture or used a focal point in the distance, it didn't matter. Even with an anti-haze filter it didn't really help much. I could pull some of the sharpness back into the image to acceptable levels with clarity, sharpening, and dehaze when I was processing the RAW file, but it was just too much work for the sake of a little bit of versatility in focal lengths unless I applied the settings to the whole image, which made the non-hazy parts look over-processed. Now I tend to use a prime on one body and the 55-200mm on a second. A lot of people love the 18-135mm and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't fit me and I was very disappointed with the quality control on my early copy. From what I have read, it has improved over time, but my experience with it was disappointing overall.

I don't use one, but the only digital platforms that I share through automatically downsample the images, so there really isn't a way for anyone to "steal" them in a usable form. If someone wants to copy a 1024 pixel resolution version of one of my photos, they can have it. Nothing they can do with that low-res image will have a significant impact on me. Aside from that, the only way that they are publicly visible is if I've printed them for an exhibition in a gallery. Signatures on photos are like logos in many ways, but less prominently displayed. I've seen elegant solutions, awful ones that degrade the image as a whole, and everything in between. If you're going to use one, my best advice is to place it on a few different images from your portfolio with a wide range of subjects and ask a few fellow photographers and friends whose opinions you respect and trust to give you feedback. Go through several refinements of the design if necessary.

I've never had an issue with the focus speed on my 23mm f/1.4, but what constitutes "fast enough" is highly variable based on the subjects that you're shooting. I rarely shoot anything with people moving faster than a walking pace and much of my photography is landscape, abandoned industrial, or basic everyday street. Most of my photos have little movement or I'm shooting at a high enough aperture that almost any focal point it grabs onto works for me. I will say that the 16mm is noticeably faster, which makes sense because it is relatively new by comparison, although not as new as the f/2 lenses. I do feel like the 23mm is a bit faster than the 35mm f/1.4, but of my most used primes, the 16mm definitely wins the speed contest.

I do very minimal processing of my photos aside from RAW and then converting to black and white. I've been using Adobe for my RAW conversions with Silver Efex for B&W. I haven't really been happy with other options for my B&W work, but I did really like Capture One in this regard when I tried it recently. My only problem is that Capture One seems to demand far more system resources than Adobe applications. That's not an issue on my 15" MacBook Pro, but I travel a lot and when I'm on the road I use a 2017 12-inch MacBook. I did max out the processor and RAM in the MacBook, but it still runs very hot when using Capture One and stays fairly cool in Adobe apps. It runs well without lag, but it still concerns me. Has anyone else noticed a big difference in processor demands between Capture One and Adobe?

23mm f/1.4 35mm f/1.4 56mm f/1.2 I find that there is very little I can't do with these based on my personal style of photography. I also own the 16mm f/1.4, but I only add that to my bag if I feel like the locations I'm visiting will require it. The 16mm has amazing image quality, but it's not something I use daily. For the most part I've found that the 23mm is wide enough for what I do and most of the time if I bring my 55-200mm I end up using it at 55 or a few shots close to 200. Bringing the 56mm instead of that means I gain a lot of options for depth of field and only miss out on a handful of long shots.

For your trip I think the 12mm is an excellent choice. Should be able to get some wonderful aurora shots (or astro in general). If that's a big goal for you while there, it's a great investment given the price.

Personally, I prefer the f/1.4 versions of Fuji's primes, but if the f/2 is more in line with your budget and you find the weather resistance reassuring you won't be disappointed. For me, I don't really compare the focal length of the 27mm to the other lenses in my collection when I'm deciding what to pack for a trip or purchase. Among my lenses, I consider the 27mm to be a specialty lens. I use it when I want to keep a low-profile for street photography or when I want the smallest possible camera. It is a great lens, but my most used lenses are the 23mm and 35mm and it doesn't bother me at all that the 27mm is so close in focal length, especially with how small and light the 27mm is. I think there is a lot of value in owning all three. If you're looking for something to shoot a lot of portraits with, then I would go for the 50mm. If you want something that has a little more versatility, the 35mm is a good choice, but it is pretty close in focal length to the 27mm. As I stated above, that doesn't bother me, but I know it's an important consideration for some people. Also, if you like to do portraits that show a bit of the environment around the subject, then the 35mm is a good choice.

I'm looking forward to updating and testing my 10-24mm. This was my big complaint about it and causes me to keep the OIS turned off except when I'm shooting dark, interior architecture, such as old cathedrals. I still like the lens and I'll probably still keep it turned off unless absolutely needed, but if they've made progress in fixing this issue it will be most welcome.

About 95% of my photography is done with the 23mm or 35mm, both in the f/1.4 versions. I don't have a problem with the f/2 models, but whenever possible I strongly prefer to go with lenses that are optically corrected. The f/2 lenses rely heavily on digital correction to get their physical size reduced. The f/2 lenses still have great quality, it's just a personal preference. I shoot a variety of subjects with these two lenses ranging from landscape to street. In the past year I've traveled to Budapest, Norway, San Francisco, Utah, Colorado, Upper Peninsula Michigan, Montreal, Vermont, Washington DC, North Cascade National Park, and Olympic National Park. I have never felt like I've missed out using mainly these two focal lengths. The 16mm was used briefly in Muir Woods to help capture the immense scale of that forest and I do like having the 55-200mm on a second body, but it doesn't get used very often. My 10-24mm mostly stays at home, but I keep it around because there are very specific times when I will bring it, such as architectural shots in old, dark European cathedrals. Those cases are more about the stabilization than necessarily being ultra-wide though. My personal style of shooting has evolved to be less focused on wide angle over time, particularly with landscapes. The 23mm is wide enough for almost everything I do, but not so wide that I feel like I need to crop the images to get a good composition.

In general, my take on lens selection for travel is that I don't adjust my kit too far outside my comfort zone. Readjusting everything in the name of versatility can actually be self-defeating if by doing so it slows you down or makes you second guess your composition too frequently. I love my primes because I feel my shooting is instinctual and my composition is at its best. With the 23mm or 35mm, I rarely have to reframe my shot, the shutter is clicking as soon as my X-Pro2 hits my eye, and I rarely crop an image. If I were to leave behind those lenses for the 18-55mm on a trip, my photos would probably suffer even though I theoretically have more versatility. Some people shoot much better with zooms. I shoot better with primes. My travel kit is usually 23mm, 35mm, and 55-200mm. Sometimes I'll throw in the 16mm. The biggest thing for me to get over was to learn to accept that I will miss some shots because I don't like to switch lenses frequently. Many times I pick one lens for the day and stick with it unless I realize I've made a horrible mistake. To me, there are always good photos around you with almost any lens, the trick is to have a short memory about the shots you aren't equipped for and focus on seeing the ones you are. Rather than approaching the trip with the idea of "what shots will I potentially miss without this lens," ask yourself "what am I most comfortable shooting with." Your photos as a whole will be better, even if you miss a few good shots. My one specific recommendation is that you are spot on with taking the longer zoom. I don't use mine frequently, but I always travel with it. Your feet can substitute for a zoom in the 18-55 range with primes, but not at 200mm.

I agree with Milandro. When you put an adapted lens with no electrical contacts on the camera it reads as f/0, so I think that clearly indicates a loss of electrical connection.

All I can do is give you what I would bring if I were in your position because I have never been to Thailand myself. I prefer to use primes. When I travel, my bag starts with 2 primes, then I'll add a zoom. I would probably bring the 23mm, one of the 35mm lenses (I prefer the f/1.4, but both are good), and the 18-55mm. The X100T is a great camera, but with my personal shooting style I generally don't subscribe to the "bring the X100 instead of the 23mm" line of thinking. 23mm is probably my most used focal length and I would rather bring both the lens and the X100T. If I want to be less conspicuous, use the X100T when necessary. But I would never want to be caught without that focal length on my interchangeable lens camera. I think the 23 and 35mm focal lengths nicely cover the range of subjects that you can expect, based on what friends and relatives who have been to Thailand have shown me.

I had the 18-135mm and sold it. It's not a bad lens, but it's not a great one either. Whenever I was shooting something where I specifically wanted a longer focal length, the 135mm was rarely enough. Also, the 55-200mm has exceptional image quality. I shoot 90% of my photos with primes, but the 55-200 never disappoints me in sharpness or overall image quality. It doubles as a decent portrait lens too if you open up the aperture, zoom it, and step back a bit. I would also say that if you enjoy landscapes, the 55-200mm is something I never go without for landscapes. It seems counter-intuitive at first, but a moderate telephoto zoom can get you great landscape photos in specific environments. I've shot the Swiss Alps with the 10-24 and the Cascade Mountains with the 55-200 and got great images in both cases. Excellent and underrated landscape tool.

I greatly prefer primes over zooms, but it does require patience in getting used them. I have three primes that I use for most of my photography: 16mm, 23mm, and 35mm, all in the f/1.4 versions. I rarely switch lenses while I'm out, typically selecting one to shoot with for the majority of the day based on my instinct about the location I'm planning to be. Probably the most difficult thing to get used to is leaving photos behind. There are times when I can see a good photo, but I don't even bring the viewfinder to my eye because I know that the focal length I'm using simply cannot capture what my mind sees. I don't view that as a problem, just the reality of my situation at that moment. It doesn't bother me because the number of shots that I'm happy with greatly outnumber the ones that I miss and I feel that I bring home almost twice as many good shots with a prime on camera than with a zoom. That doesn't mean I never use zooms though. I usually travel with the 55-200mm and sometimes I'll swap out the 16mm for the 10-24mm depending on where I'm traveling, but for the core 16 or 18 to 55mm range my personal preference is my three primes and my feet.

Have you tried turning off the OIS? I find that makes a noticeable difference in the corners when it's not needed.

I had an Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-T 100mm f/2 that was great for portraits. I ended up selling it and buying the Fuji 55-200mm because it suited my needs a bit better for my photography. I don't take all that many portraits. That Olympus was excellent though. They also made an f/2.8 version which is much cheaper, but not as fast and didn't have as much character to it.

I'm a big fan of this Tap & Dye wrist strap. It's incredibly comfortable and the leather is very durable and high quality. Gordy's makes a great product too though. I have the Tap and Dye on my X-Pro2 and a Gordy's on an X-E1. https://www.tapanddye.com/collections/leather-camera-straps/products/l-e-g-a-c-y-leather-camera-wrist-strap-horween-chromexcel-hand-stitched For leather maintenance, I use Montana Pitch Blend once every other month, sometimes more frequently depending on the weather conditions I've been shooting in.

For most of my portraits, I use either the 35mm f/1.4 or the 55-200mm. Neither have ever let me down and you can buy both of them used in near perfect condition for the price of the 56mm, or less. I know people who love the 56mm and whatever works for them, great. But for me it's unnecessary.

As long as you can keep your hands even a little bit steady, you'll be fine without OIS, especially at 23mm focal length. The wider the lens, the slower the shutter speed you can get away with. Just watch your shutter speed in different lighting and situations as you get used to the lens. A very general rule is that you should try to keep your shutter speed at 1/(focal length of the lens in 35mm equivalent). So for the 23mm, you should aim for at least 1/35 second to be safe (that is assuming that your subject is not moving). If it's slower, then open up your aperture a little bit or increase your ISO. I have pretty steady hands, so I've found that I can usually get away with down to 1/20 second using my 23mm. As I get older, that will probably change, but for now I can do it! If I'm running really close to my limit for handheld shots, I'll usually take 2 or 3, which isn't a bad idea anyhow regardless of shutter speed if you think it's a good shot. About 85% of my photos are done with the 23 and 35mm primes and I have zero problems without OIS. You'll be fine once you shoot with it for a little bit and find your own limits for handheld shutter speeds.

Glass (and the coatings applied to it) can most certainly affect color, any time you are refracting and bending light using a lens it can cause shifts in the spectrum or in radical cases break it apart (more in the case of prism than a lens though). Most of the time with the camera settings and scene being the same between decent quality lenses what you would see is differences in contrast or saturation more than any significant color shift though. If there is a huge difference in actual color, not just contrast or saturation, then there is probably something off with the lens or an automated function of the camera is reading the scene a little differently on one lens and causing a shift. I know that the f/2 versions do rely more heavily on digital corrections in camera and in RAW than the optically corrected f/1.4 versions. That's how Fuji was able to reduce the size/weight and add weather sealing. If there is a noticeable difference, it's probably due to that. I own the f/1.4 lenses and have been happy enough with them that I have no need to buy the f/2 at this point, so I can't make a direct comparison with my own photos though.

Agreed. And using a slightly longer focal length can help overcome that a little bit, but also presents its own challenges and tends to be less instinctive or impulsive in terms of composition. That's why I really liked the 35mm when I was just starting to try street photography. It was still close enough to the 23mm that I couldn't just park myself somewhere at a distance, but it did demand enough space from my subject to feel more comfortable. One thing that helped me get more comfortable with taking photos of strangers was to start by trying to tell a story in a photo where the subject is facing away from me. If you get stuck on taking photos of people from behind, you're missing out on most of what street photography has to offer, but I did find that it's a good exercise to help get comfortable at first. And I still like taking photos from that perspective sometimes. Here are a couple examples with the 23mm f/1.4 lens. Sorry for having to hyperlink to them instead of embedding, I haven't updated my Flickr account in a while. http://orendarling.com/post/155460184947/new-orleans-louisiana-december-2016-oren-darling http://orendarling.com/post/151358460221/budapest-hungary-september-2016-oren-darling http://orendarling.com/post/155552615897/new-orleans-louisiana-december-2016-oren Foggy nights can also be a nice time to go out and shoot some street photos while you're adjusting to the idea of photographing strangers. http://orendarling.com/post/155649872776/new-orleans-louisiana-december-2016-oren-darling This is with the 35mm f/1.4, but it's a similar strategy. http://orendarling.com/post/151403665492/budapest-hungary-september-2016-oren-darling http://orendarling.com/post/155273031645/oakland-california-november-2016-oren-darling Street musicians can be another great way to practice without feeling uncomfortable. Just toss a dollar or two in their jar and fire away with a few portraits: http://orendarling.com/post/155602089980/view-from-cafe-du-monde-new-orleans-louisiana http://orendarling.com/post/155696255002/bourbon-street-new-orleans-louisiana-december

My 27mm is permanently attached to my wife's X-E1, but I liked that lens so much that I've started browsing ebay for used copies for myself. Most of my work is done with the 23mm and 35mm f/1.4 lenses. I greatly prefer the f/1.4 versions of those lenses for general use, so the 27mm is the perfect complement to them for low-key street photography.

I love the 23mm focal length, but I'd say it's a toss up depending on what your personal preferences are. 35mm could be an excellent option as well. Either of those two will probably be an ideal prime to complement the zoom. I probably do 90% of my photography with either the 23 or 35 and the remainder is a mix of the 16mm and 55-200mm. The 23mm and 35mm may seem fairly close in focal length, but there is a huge difference between them when you're actually out shooting. I'd get as close to each of those as possible on your zoom and try shooting at only one focal length for a bit. Try at 23 first, then 35. You very well may end up owning both of those primes eventually, but that will help you decide which to buy first. The other question is how comfortable are you getting close to people in your street photography? If you're very comfortable with that, then the 23 makes a lot of sense. If you're not that comfortable with getting close to people, the 35 might help then you can get the 23 as you get more comfortable.

My two favorite travel combinations are an X-Pro2 with: 16mm, 23mm, 35mm (all f/1.4 versions), 55-200mm, X-T1 with 27mm OR 10-24mm, 23mm, 35mm, 55-200mm, X-T1 with 27mm The 18-135mm was an okay lens in its versatility, but I think the copy that I had was from the first production run and had some quality control issues. Landscapes seemed to require a lot of dehazing in RAW because anything at a distance lacked contrast. My personal preference is primes anyhow, so I sold my 18-135mm. For me, my limit on what I travel with is whatever fits in my billingham bag, which easily fits under the seat in front of me on a plane. I don't get too hung up on limiting how many lenses I bring as long as they fit in the bag, so I don't really miss the versatility of the 18-135mm. That's a personal preference though, some people are the opposite. I would tend to go for a large aperture prime to complement the 18-135mm. There are wonderful opportunities to shoot at night on the streets that image stabilization won't help with. I love the 35mm lenses, but I do slightly prefer 23mm as a little more versatile for covering both street and a lot of landscapes. I know you said that you have the 16mm f/1.4, but for me that's a little too wide in some situations. Again, that's just personal preference though and the streets in Europe tend to be much narrower than the US. One thing that would make me consider the 10-24mm is architecture. If you plan to shoot a lot of architecture while there, it's hard to beat this lens given the stabilization. At 10mm I've shot 1/4 second handheld in dimly lit historic churches and other buildings on my travels without having to sacrifice depth of field. It comes down to asking yourself what you want to take home from this trip in terms of photos. If you want to capture a cross-section of street images and the life of the place, another prime is how I'd go. If you're more interested in documenting the physical characteristics of the place and possibly trade off some street opportunities at night, then the 10-24mm is the way to go.

I own the 16mm, 23mm, and 35mm in the f/1.4 versions. These three form my main kit for most of my photography, with the 23 and 35 being on my camera about 85% of the time. You specifically mention night shots as one are that you need to cover. Are you wanting to do general purpose night photography or astrophotography (or both)? The 16mm has a fair amount of coma when used for astrophotography and a lot of people stop it down to f/2.8 for those types of shots, so it loses some of it's edge there. Among the Fuji lenses, the 23mm is probably the best I've used for astrophotography. If you're looking for a wide angle prime for everything except astrophotography, the 16mm is by far the best in terms of image quality in my opinion. Personally, I really enjoy street photography at night and have been very happy with the 23 and 35 for that use. The 23mm has lived up to being sharp and overall one of the best quality Fuji lenses I've used. I know that zooms are more convenient for travel, but after several years with Fuji, my kit has shrunk to the 16mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 55-200mm, for both everyday use and travel. I love those three primes enough that even with the "better" zooms like the 16-55mm, I will gladly trade a little versatility for the image quality (and image character) of the primes.