Nero

I really like the 10-24mm for scouting new places during the day and I have gotten many images from it that I've been very happy with. However, when the image stabilization really kicks in, it does lose some sharpness in the edges and corners. I'm not a fanatic about that being perfect, but I do tend to go back to the locations of my best images and reshoot them with either the 16mm or 23mm f/1.4 primes. If I only had the 10-24mm, I would be happy with it. However, there is enough of a difference in quality that I definitely appreciate owning both. If you go with the 10-24mm, I'd recommend turning off the stabilization when it's not needed. It's wide enough that you can get away with very slow shutter speeds handheld and it will help with the quality.

You said that you're primarily a landscape shooter, but to me part of this question is how locked into that are you? My typical kit is the 16mm, 23mm, and 35mm, all f/1.4 versions. Nothing against the f/2 versions, I just bought all of these before the new ones were released. I love the 16 and 23 and would argue that it's not a bad idea to buy both when you can afford to. However, the 23 will give you more all around versatility as far as everyday shooting. It's my go to lens most of the time, with the 35 coming in a close second. I'm perfectly comfortable using it for landscapes, street, and pretty much anything that I happen across. I rarely encounter a landscape that doesn't yield a good photo with a little footwork and some quick compositional judgment with the 23. I also don't plan my landscapes much because I'm either traveling with a long but spontaneous itinerary or I'm with other people and don't want to slow them down. The 16 comes out of my bag in much more specific situations. I prefer primes, but I also prefer to not switch lenses frequently through the day, which makes the 23mm a much better focal length for me on most days.

I'd say it purely comes down to whether you're willing to pay the additional $500+ for the extra aperture. The weather sealing on the f/2 is nice, but never a deal breaker for me. You could debate about size/weight, but for a portrait lens I don't think it really matters as much as on a "normal" lens that you're shooting a lot of different things with. Just decide what your budget is and buy one based on that.

I can't really weigh in on the 16-55mm. I have used it and love the image quality, but I don't own it and haven't really traveled with it so I can't say how much the weight really bothers me over a longer period of time. What I can say is that I was disappointed in my copy of the 18-135mm. It was vastly better than the equivalent kit lens from Canon that I had used for a little while and I did take some excellent pictures with it, but the contrast wasn't nearly as good and anything in the distance needed some dehaze and clarity in RAW that my other Fuji lenses don't require, even at similar focal lengths and apertures. I ended up selling it and going with primes and the 55-200mm, which better fits my shooting style anyhow. My copy was a pre-order though, so it could have had some initial quality control issues that they've worked through by now, but I'm just not inclined to try another one.

How many landscape and architecture shots you tend to take is the main question, but also how much you intend to travel. One of my favorite travel combinations is 10-24, 35 f/1.4, and 55-200, but I have also taken the 16, 23, 35 f/1.4 and the 55-200 while traveling too depending on the location. If my travel is oriented toward landscapes, then I lean toward the 16 when I'm packing. If I'm going to be in cities, then I take the 24. So even within landscape and architecture there are some considerations to be made. If I could only have one of them, it would probably be the 16mm because of the image quality edge, but if I only had the 10-24, I wouldn't necessarily be disappointed.

I've never been real big on looking at numerical test results for lenses. Based on my personal experience owning both, the 16mm is quite visibly sharper than the 10-24mm when I open the files and compare as I process my images. I own and use both, so I do like the 10-24mm for some situations. If you want to maximize the sharpness from the 10-24, turn off the stabilization whenever conditions allow you to do so. The edge and corner sharpness drops off pretty fast once the stabilization really starts to kick in. So if sharpness is an important concern, you definitely want boost your ISO to get the shutter speed up and not rely on the stabilization whenever possible. Being so wide, you can get away with much slower speeds anyhow, so it's not a big loss.

I love the 27mm, but personally I wouldn't bother bringing it unless I had a second body to just leave it attached to for the whole trip. I love it as a street lens, but I found that every time I brought it with me traveling mainly because "it's just so small and weighs so little," I would never use it. The experiences of going someplace new are so diverse, even when I'm out shooting photos in the streets, I wanted something more. Sometimes that was zoom, sometimes it was the extra aperture or more familiar focal lengths of the 23 and 35 f/1.4 primes. I really started using the 27mm when I bought a cheap X-E1 body and dedicated it to that lens.

I was always disappointed with my copy of the 18-135mm, but I pre-ordered it, so perhaps there were some quality control issues on the first production run. If I remember correctly, it was one of the XF lenses that is made in China instead of Japan. It was still a good lens and was absolutely far better than the equivalent Canon 18-135mm kit lens that I had used at one point. However, my copy was disappointing compare to other Fuji lenses. I sold my copy and bought the 55-200mm, which is far superior in image quality, at least when comparing my copies of those lenses. That being said, the 18-135mm for travel in a dusty environment is pretty hard to beat unless the 16-55mm is in your price range (or you want to rent it) and you're okay with a shorter maximum focal length. When I travel, I always bring 2 primes and a zoom. Which combination I choose really depends on the destination, but most of the time the 23mm and 35mm f/1.4 lenses rarely leave my bag.

I would go for the Fuji. I haven't used the f/2, but the f/1.4 is one of the best lenses I've ever used. It's by far my favorite lens. Zeiss makes good lenses, but Fuji has them beat. In my opinion, I would tend to pick the f/1.4 over the f/2. That's just personal preference though. I think that being optically corrected instead of digitally corrected gives the f/1.4 an edge in image quality, but in most cases you may not be able to tell the difference. In other respects, the f/2 wins out.

If you can't get any closer and want the flexibility of a zoom, the 50-140 seems like the best bet. If you can get closer to the action, a combination of the 35mm f/1.4 and the 56mm would seem logical to me. You need wide aperture and sharp images at higher ISO. Image stabilization will be essentially meaningless at the shutter speeds you need to hit to reliably freeze the action.

If budget is one of your points, the 55-200 is a great choice. It's slower than the 50-140, but much less expensive and a lot easier to handle on a lighter body like the X-T10.

I'll start off by saying that I have not been to the Galapagos. I had the 18-135mm for a long time and found that 135 was not long enough when I needed it most. I've since moved to the 55-200mm, which is much better and it is pretty versatile for more than just wildlife. That being said, I still feel like the 100-400mm needs to be added to my kit if I want to do some serious wildlife photos. I would be inclined to go for that if I were taking a trip to a place as remote and with as much diversity as the Galapagos.

Traveling in Budapest recently I brought my X-Pro2, 23mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 as the only lenses. I do agree that the 27mm is a phenomenal all purpose, compact lens though..... and I think my wife would agree because she has claimed my copy of the 27mm for her X-E1 and never takes it off her camera! Here are a couple shots from the 35mm and 23mm from Budapest. When I travel with these two lenses they never let me down. Sometimes I may wish I had my 16mm or 10-24mm, but those only cover very specific types of shots for me. I need to catch up on my Flickr uploads, so I can't embed these in the post right now, but here are the links to them on my Tumblr blog posts: http://orendarling.com/post/151403665492/budapest-hungary-september-2016-oren-darling http://orendarling.com/post/151358460221/budapest-hungary-september-2016-oren-darling

My two lenses that I shoot with probably 90% of the time are the 23mm and 35mm, both in the f/1.4 versions. Considering your X-T10 is not weather resistant, I would be inclined to go with the f/1.4 versions unless you have plans to get a WR body in the near future. They may cost a little more brand new, but you can find a lot of good used copies that would balance it out in terms of cost. Nothing necessarily wrong with the f/2 versions, but I prefer the f/1.4 personally. Just think about how wide you prefer to shoot before buying your first one. 23 and 35 are both versatile, but they are quite different from one another.

I would second the recommendation of considering the the 35mm f/1.4 for another lens. I love my copy and it's on my camera more often than any other lens I own. With the Fuji discounts, it can get close to your price range new, but I'm sure there are a lot of used copies in great condition out there from people switching to the f/2 model. I think both versions are great lenses, but I personally prefer the f/1.4.

I think on the Pro2 and T2, the extra stop of ISO to noise performance compared to the T1 helps bail you out a little bit on the f/4 aperture, but my go-to lens for astro among Fuji branded lenses remains the 23mm f/1.4. I own the 10-24mm, but haven't really tried it because I've been very happy with the 23mm for my purposes. If I were to go wider and start shooting more astro photos, I would almost certainly just buy a Samyang specifically for it given the low price.

I've answered this before, but I think all of us have evolving needs in equipment as our experience and style change over time, so I'll answer it again. Currently, almost all of my work is done with the 23mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4. I also own the 16mm for wide angle. I would say that 90% of my needs are covered by these lenses, but for the remaining 10% of situations, I would add the 55-200mm as a fourth lens. If I'm traveling, I sometimes switch out the 16mm for the 10-24mm.

You can also turn off the automatic corrections in Iridient Developer. I rarely turn them off, but sometimes it is interesting to see the difference, particularly on the wide end of the 10-24mm. I have had some issues with sharpness in the edges of the 10-24mm. Some of this is due to image stabilization, but at higher shutter speeds when I turn off the OIS I will still see a little bit of it in the corners at wider focal lengths. When there is heavy digital correction going on, you're almost certainly going to lose something. There's always a trade off. When I choose to use the 10-24mm, I haven't had any real issues with the quality in the corners and from everyone I have talked to the 16-55mm is optically one of Fuji's best zooms. In my opinion, since I find the corrections on the 10-24mm to be acceptable for the most part and the 16-55mm is supposed to be even better in image quality, I wouldn't let this affect my decision if I were looking at buying one.

When I was looking for a Helios, I focused on the older versions. I have a 44-1, an old low serial Zebra, and a 44-2. The newer ones may be "better" in the ways that you would measure or compare more expensive or better known lenses, but to me the reason for buying a Helios is for the unique aesthetics, which are most prominent in older models. They are hit or miss in quality and condition, so be sure to ask lots of questions if buying on eBay and since they are so cheap, my strategy was to buy three from different sources and slightly different models and then pick my favorite. Also, some adapters seem to have issues with infinity focus. You don't have to buy the most expensive to avoid this, just be aware of it and read the reviews before you buy.

For the wide to normal focal lengths, I have the 10-24, 16, 23, and 35. I like the versatility of the 10-24 for landscape, architecture, and travel. The OIS works well. The downside is that although the 10-24 has very good image quality, it simply does not match the quality from the 16 or 23, especially when the OIS is in use. I still find it worth owning, but I will return to places with the 16 or 23 and reshoot them if I think there is a truly great photo to be had. I would not give up my primes for the 10-24, but I would consider adding it eventually if you think you would use it. I recently went to Budapest and shot everything on my 23 and 35 f/1.4 lenses. The 10-24 never came out of my backpack.

When I say "magic" I'm saying that there are qualities to the lens that are a bit deeper than numbers and official test results. When Fuji first released the 35mm f/1.4, a lot of people were talking down its edge sharpness and other test results, but in the end it became one of the most loved lenses in the XF lineup. The images may not quite "measure up" to some others in official tests, but there is something very appealing to how it renders images that you cannot see in specs, charts, and diagrams. The f/2 is a great lens, but the images I get from it don't have that same quality. For me, it's worth owning, but unless I'm concerned about needing the WR feature on a particular day, the f/1.4 is what goes in my bag.

The 35mm f/2 is a fine lens, but the 35mm f/1.4 has a unique magic to it. When in doubt, I always go for the optically corrected distortion versus digital correction. That's how they were able to make the 35mm f/2 cheaper and smaller. It may still be a great lens, but relying on software distortion correction will almost always produce lower image quality. Fuji deserves a pat on the back for making the f/2 come this close to the f/1.4, but there is a very noticeable difference to me. I am very interested to see how the 23mm f/2 stacks up to the f/1.4 version. The 23mm f/1.4 is another of my favorites, but it has a very "clinical" rendering compared to the 35mm, which makes me wonder if it might be possible for them to get the f/2 version a little closer to the f/1.4 than they were able to with the 35mm lenses. Relying on digital correction will still lose some sharpness in edges and corners, but there's a little less "magic" to try to recapture in the 23mm, it's mainly a matter of sharpness.

A lot of people like to pair the 16-55mm with something with more reach, such as the 50-140 or the 55-200 that recommended in an earlier post. However, if you tend to prefer wide shots you may want to consider the 10-24mm in the future. I've found it to be an excellent complement to my 35mm f/1.4 and is very versatile for landscape, street, and architecture. Some will call it bulky, but the weight is not bad at all and the size is not as bad as some of the other zooms because all of the zooming is done internally. My only recommendation would be even though it has OIS, push your ISO up as needed to avoid leveraging the stabilization too hard. The image quality of the 10-24 is superb, but if you're using the OIS too heavily the quality in the corners starts to drop off noticeably. I know that's an issue with any stabilized lens, but I've noticed that it's much more visible on the 10-24 than some of the other OIS Fuji zooms.

I know that you're saying the 90mm is too large, but I would at least consider the 55-200mm. It's about 0.5" longer than the 90mm, but it is very versatile and has excellent image quality. The versatility of the zoom might offset some of your concerns about the size. It complements the 18-55 perfectly. Extremely sharp edge to edge. Cheap compared to other lenses, especially if you can find a good used copy. The bokeh may not be as good as the 56mm, but it's very respectable.

Personally, my favorite portrait lens is the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 because it's so versatile for other things and the images just have some kind of "magic" quality to them. You should be able to find a lot of used copies in good condition since a lot of people sold them for the f/2 version. I prefer the f/1.4, others prefer the f/2. I won't get into a debate on that because both are good. However, I also own several Helios lenses that I bought from eBay that are fun to use. They are not the best (by far) and have flaws in everything that comes out of them, but they are unique and fun to use sometimes. For adapters the most important thing I can say is to read the reviews before buying. On my Helios lenses there were a lot of adapters out there that people said would not allow infinity focusing. I didn't have to buy the most expensive adapter, but it was important to find one that had consistent, positive performance in the reviews. I'd suspect that is true for most adapted lenses. Lastly, I would not wait and save for any rumored lenses from Fuji that do not have a set and announced release date. There are too many unknowns and potential disappointments. If you are ready to start shooting with it, stick with what is on the market now or what has an official release date. If something more appealing gets announced while you are saving, then switch your plan, but too many lenses get changed or canceled between the rumor and the announcement to build your plans around.