Nero

It always comes down to what you like to shoot and how you plan to approach using the lens you buy. I own both. They are both great lenses for different reasons and purposes. The 10-24 is more versatile, the 16 is faster and sharper edge to edge. Based on what you said, do you like to shoot images that have some movement in them or are your night and low-light shots more geared toward architecture? If you're shooting scenes with people or cars and movement, the OIS won't help you out in low light unless you're ok with those things being blurred due to slower shutter speeds. If you're not shooting Much stuff with movement in low light and value versatility, then the 10-24 is the way to go.

You probably have as much information about this as anyone else aside from people at Fuji. It's really a guessing game aside from the 23mm being the strongest candidate for the next WR update according to multiple rumors. My best guess would be a WR 10-24mm is pretty far down the priority list. The internal zooming of that lens makes weather sealing less necessary and a lot of people complain about the size already. I don't find the size to be too much of an issue except for the lens hood, which greatly expands the footprint of the 10-24mm when attached. Weather sealing would likely compound the size complaints. They were able to shrink the 35mm f/2 WR compared to the f/1.4 partly by reducing the optical components in favor of digital correction instead of optical correction. On a "normal" focal length, this is much more practical, but on the 10-24mm there is already A LOT of digital correction going on in the image at the wider focal lengths. Adding a significant amount more digital correction and removing some of the optical components to compensate for the additional size of weather sealing very well may reduce image quality, which Fuji has already said is their #1 priority across the system. Additionally, they had some room to cut out a stop of aperture and still have a reasonably fast lens. They don't have that room to maneuver with the 10-24mm at f/4. If they could pull it off, I would welcome the update, but I wouldn't count on it happening anytime soon. That's another reason why I own both the 16mm WR and the 10-24mm..... and why I would just buy the current 10-24mm if you feel a need for it.

For me, the max aperture is just one of several reasons that I own both of these lenses, and overall it's not the most important thing that separates them. There are times when I shoot the 16mm at f/8-f/11 all day because it is optically corrected and sharper edge to edge compared to the 10-24mm. I love the zoom because I can shoot it at f/8, low-ISO with the stabilization to bail me out on the slow shutter speed. However, in many cases I'm going to get softer corners because even though it's superb quality for a zoom, the 16mm is optically in another tier. The 18mm has some great characteristics in size, price, and the fact some of the areas where it supposedly "falls short" can actually give it some extra character for street photos, but once again the 16mm is optically in another league if you're thinking about shooting landscapes. There have been a number of cases where I will go out "scouting" some landscapes with the 10-24mm and will get some great, print quality images, but I'll take a second loop through with the 16mm to recapture the best of those compositions to put them over the top.

It's tough for me to get down to just 2 lenses for a travel kit without using the 18-135, which I own, but I'm not a big fan of when it can be avoided. My 3 lens travel kit is the 10-24mm, 35mm f/1.4, and 55-200mm. I find that many things from 25-54mm I can zoom with my feet using the 35. I use the wide and normal lenses on my Pro2 and the 55-200 on the X-T1 to minimize lens changes. I realize that changes if you're only using one Fuji body though. My 4 lens travel kit is the 16mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 55-200mm, again with the primes on the Pro2 and the 55-200mm on the T1. I rarely crop images, but if I need to be quick, the Pro2 gives me a little extra resolution to work with, while the 55-200 on the T1 I compose a little more carefully in the camera. For a 2 lens solution, the 18-135mm and either the 10-24mm or 35mm f/1.4 depending on what kind of trip I'm going on.

I think that part of that "magic" is the fact that the f/1.4 is optically a better lens. Mechanically and in some other ways such as weather sealing, the f/2 has an advantage. However, to get the price point and size down while only giving up one stop of light and improving other things, they did make some sacrifices in the optics. The f/2 is not optically corrected, it relies on digital correction, but the f/1.4 is optically corrected. That doesn't mean you can't have a great lens that relies on digital correction. The 10-24mm is wonderful and that relies heavily on digital correction at the wide end. However, you don't expect a wide angle f/4 landscape lens to have that "magic" in the same sense that a fast "normal" lens might. Fuji hit a home run on the f/2 given the price, features, focus speed, etc, but optically they hit a grand slam with the f/1.4 version. That is where the consistency comes from in producing those "magic" images.

Luigi said by email that his X-Pro2 half case may be ready later next week and to check with him by email to confirm it. I've always like his work, but the plastic strip running behind the tilt screen on the design for his X-T1 half case made me go with Arte di Mano for that camera.

Turkey Run State Park, Indiana. January, 2016 with the X-T1 and XF 16mm WR. DSCF1822_1 by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF1830_1 by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF1829 by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF1834 by Oren Darling, on Flickr

This is an open topic for anyone who has information on half cases for the X-Pro2. I realize that not many are available for such a new camera, but as people find them, please post here. I'm not a fan of the Fuji branded half cases and will be looking for a nice third party half case as soon as there are some options on the market to choose from. I'm guessing that the usual companies such as Luigi (Leicatime), Gariz, and Angelo Pelle, and Arte di Mano will have X-Pro2 cases in the near future, but I'm always interested to see what new options appear as well.

I own both the 16mm prime and the 10-24mm and I don't consider those to be redundant. The widest side of the 10-24mm is unique enough to be worth owning in my mind, especially given the versatility and quality through its range.

I received my X-Pro2 on Wednesday and aside from some minor settings changes I held off on digging into a full setup on it until I could get a better feel for the camera since I'm mainly an X-T1 user until now and to see if the reset bug would hit me. One of the first things I did change was to set it to shoot RAW to SD slot 1 and JPG to slot 2. Shot a few test photos last evening. When I went to review them this morning, I noticed that they were all JPG. Sure enough, when I looked at the settings it had reverted to shooting JPG sequentially across both cards. Shot some images for work on it today and the settings have held so far since I switched it back. No issues with overheating or other errors. I'm not going to pack it up and ship it back at the first sign of trouble if it can be fixed with a firmware update, but I'm going to be very cautious about spending too much time on setting up everything to perfectly fit me until that firmware fix is released.

The shooting experience is the most important part for me, with image quality of Fuji's sensors and the glass coming in very close behind. A positive and fun shooting experience translates into better images for me. My reaction time is faster and my thoughts are more completely focused on composition with the technical aspects of making a good shot falling into place almost automatically. But that's a very personal preference, it may not work out that way for others who try Fuji equipment. If Fuji entered the full frame market, I would give some thought buying it to complement my current gear, not necessarily replace it, although if there is a medium format option also on the table I would strongly consider that instead of full frame. If I were going to invest heavily in another sensor format and lenses to go with it, medium format would be more differentiation between the systems. It would cost more than full frame and be physically larger, but I would rather spend a little more and have a much clearer difference in capability.

Most people I have spoken to have said that the Zeiss is purely a big-name attraction, but falls well short of the Fuji in quality.

I own one of these. I haven't used it for camera batteries yet because I just throw a half dozen Wasabi spares in my bag for backpacking, but it does the job for recharging a phone so that you've got music around the campfire at night. http://www.bioliteenergy.com/products/biolite-campstove

I like the versatility of the 18-135mm. I own it, but whenever possible I try to use other lenses. I find the that the contrast in fine detail for landscapes is lacking and it seems to require a lot more dehazing in RAW than other lenses. In another thread, the issue of quality control came up with this lens and I tend to agree. It's not made in Japan like many of the other Fuji lenses and other people haven't had the same issues that I mentioned above. Part of this could also be due to my being an early-adopter and buying it immediately upon release. The production line may have fewer QC issues now. Where this lens really shines though is the stabilization! This is a shot taken in Mammoth Cave with all of the lights out except for a small lantern that the guide lit up. Handheld, f/5.6, half second, no problem! The 5 stops of stabilization are why this lens stays even though I rarely use it. DSCF5465 copy by Oren Darling, on Flickr

Not really sure where these two images fit, but I don't want to start a new topic for the sake of two images. These are from Shades State Park in Indiana, taken with my X-T1 and 10-24mm. DSCF9646 copy by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF9644 copy by Oren Darling, on Flickr

Orangutan, Indianapolis Zoo. DSCF1972 copy by Oren Darling, on Flickr

Red Panda, Indianapolis Zoo. DSCF2035 copy by Oren Darling, on Flickr

This image was taken at Fall Creek Gorge, a Nature Conservancy preserve near Attica, Indiana. I used the XF 18-135mm WR lens with 10-stop neutral density filter on my X-T1. DSCF7600 copy by Oren Darling, on Flickr

This is for any long exposure photography that doesn't necessarily fit into the Landscape category. These first images were taken on the Roaring Branch near Arlington, Vermont. All three were done with the XF 10-24mm and 10-stop neutral density filter on my X-T1, about 75 seconds each. DSCF6807_1 by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF6797 by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF6796 by Oren Darling, on Flickr

There is an old man in Lafayette, Indiana who has a mobile nativity scene in the back of his truck at Christmas. He was fine with me taking a photo of his truck, but he did not want to be in the photo himself. DSCF0566 copy by Oren Darling, on Flickr

My wife and I traveled to Switzerland for our honeymoon in November 2014. We spent a couple days in Lauterbrunnen, which were very warm for that time of year, around 55F. We hiked from Murren to Gimmelwald to Stechelberg one of the days that we were there. The majority of that hike was shot with the XF 10-24mm on my X-T1. DSCF2593_3 by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF2563_2 by Oren Darling, on Flickr DSCF2553_1 by Oren Darling, on Flickr

Yes, the f/2 is digitally corrected. In Adobe, you can't switch off the digital correction to compare corrected vs uncorrected, but in some other applications you can, such as Iridient Developer. That might be a worthwhile test if you have access to it. Turn off the correction and check the edges and corners. I've noticed that there is some softness in the corners of some shots with my 10-24mm, which has a lot more correction happening than the 35mm f/2. It doesn't bother me all that much, but if I'm shooting something where I know I want it to be absolutely as clean as possible across the frame, I use the 16mm, which is optically corrected. This is also why I won't part with my 35mm f/1.4, although I may add the f/2 in the future given the price and WR feature.

I would at least consider the 55-200mm over the 50-140mm. Not that there is anything wrong with the 50-140. By most tests, it will outperform the 55-200 and it's WR. However, I went with the 55-200 because I found that when I wanted a telephoto, 140 wasn't enough reach for some things. The image quality on the 55-200 is fantastic, it's razor sharp, and the bokeh is quite good. It's also only $499 whenever the rebates are in effect. That's a substantial savings for little or no drop in overall image quality that could be invested in another lens. If 140 is enough at the long end and the cost isn't a deterrent, then by all means, go for the 50-140 though. The 18-55 is dead-on for your description. Go for it. For primes, I don't own the 56mm because I don't shoot enough portraits to justify the cost.... at least not yet! I do own the 27mm and have essentially put it on an X-E1 permanently as a street camera. Can't go wrong with it for the size and price for that purpose. On the wide end, the 14mm is a great lens, but I have the 10-24mm and the 16mm. Part of the reason for that overlap is that I really like to shoot landscapes. If I'm going somewhere with little idea of what to expect, I use the 10-24. If I have some idea of what to expect in a location, I typically go with the 16mm. The zoom is excellent image quality, but it can get a little soft in the corners. The 16mm is Fuji's best image quality in my opinion. Many times I will take one "scouting" pass through a location with the zoom and then a second with the 16mm, but for travel one of my favorite kits is the 10-24, 35 f/1.4, and 55-200. I won't hesitate to make large prints from either wide lens, but the difference is clear in a side by side comparison. Lastly, I can't fail to mention either the 23 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4. Ideally, I think these are complementary lenses and I love owning both, but these lenses just have a magical quality to the images you get from them. These are some of the real gems of the Fuji lineup and I would not want to walk away without at least one of them.

I'd probably go with the 35 f/1.4 simply because the extra stop differentiates it from your 16-55 a bit more than the f/2 version. Also, you've got a versatile, high image quality WR lens with the zoom, so that feature is less of an issue with the prime. I have kept the f/1.4 for this reason and have never had problems with the image quality or sharpness. Does it hold up versus the 16 or 23? Not quite, but to steal a line from past reviewers, "it just has magic in it." You will be happy either way, but personally I think the f/2 and the 16-55 are a bit too close to one another.

I've started a Flickr page. I'm almost caught up on uploading, but I need to take a pass through and add some short descriptions. Either way, all of the EXIF information is visible. I'll post some specific images on this thread when I have some time later: https://www.flickr.com/photos/140629884@N06/