Nero

I thought that the 18-55 had perfectly good stabilization, but the 18-135 is just astounding in the OIS performace. I took it on a trip down into Mammoth Cave and was shooting 1/2 second handheld shots. I'd do 3 shots for each photo whenever possible and typically get 2 of 3, then just look at the details for deciding which to keep in my editing. Can't say enough good things about the stabilization on that lens. You might be giving up some bokeh over the 18-55, but in terms of low-light performance (if you're not shooting action) it's no contest, the 18-135 is the way to go.

Okay, this isn't really a rant, but I think that there have to be SOME photographers out there who will agree with me. First, a little history:
 
I've never shot film. Never. Now, that doesn't count point-and-shoot stuff, but I've never developed film, or ever taken a fancy at SLR film cameras or have any history with film. Here is why I say this:
 
I don't have any nostalgia or affinity to whether or not fuji cameras seem like film cameras. I don't care. All I know is that I like the cameras. I don't have a long, drawn-out story about how I used to shoot old Hasselblads or Leica's back in the day, and how the look and feel of the fuji quality reminds me of film because, well, it doesn't. I don't have any good memories of film. I was never given a film camera by my dad when I was 5, and I don't have great memories of smelling developer or whatever those chemicals are. I personally can't even tell the difference (on a computer screen, at least) between images shot with film and images shot with digital. 
 
Call me crazy, but I just like Fuji cameras. I just like the dials and controls better than nikon or canon DSLR's and I just like the quality of color and how well the files hold detail in the highlights and shadows. I just feel like every great photographer who is shooting Fuji these days has this really romantic story about how they used to shoot film and how it led them to Fuji cameras. You know what led me to Fuji X cameras? Nothing. I just like them. Sadly, not an amazing story, but hey, it's true. 
 
 

I use the 18-135 over the 18-55 mostly for the weather sealing, but what really pushed me to move on from the 18-55 were my primes and the 10-24 zoom. The extra weight didn't bother me. If I'm shooting on the wide end I go with the 10-24. If I'm shooting street photos, I use the 27mm. In most everyday situations, I'm choosing between the 23 and 35 in the morning and leaving it on most of the day, zooming with my feet as much as possible. 
 
So that meant I was essentially holding onto the 18-55 for the sake of the 36-55 range on it. Then you consider that it has an additional 2 stops of stabilization over the 18-55 and that made up my mind. Traded it to a friend for a film camera and 3 vintage Olympus lenses in almost perfect condition, 50mm, 100mm and 135mm. Been shooting with them on my X-T1 every now and then for fun.

Watkins Glen State Park
(ISO 200, f16, 25sec) X-E2 + XF18-55 f-4

Fuji X-E2 XF 18mm f2 (ISO 200, f11, 350 sec)

One more from me
 
Fuji XT1+23 mm lens

Not really sure if Modern Architecture is where this belongs, but it's the best fit out of the current topics!
 
Gateway Arch, St. Louis, MO.
June, 2015.
www.orendarling.com
Fuji X-T1, XF 10-24mm @ 10mm, f/11, 1/1000s, ISO 200.
 
 
 
 
 

For as much as I love my collection of primes, if I were going on a trip where I could only take 2 lenses, it would probably be my 10-24mm and the 18-135mm WR. If you were to only take 1 zoom, it would definitely be the 10-24mm due to the architecture and landscapes on your trip. The image stabilization on both lenses is a big part of my reasoning. Personally, the 10-24mm would be a must have for that trip. As for the 18-135mm, the stabilization is unreal. I took it into Mammoth Cave in Kentucky and was nailing 1/2 second exposures in almost no light. The WR feature is a nice insurance policy against the weather on a trip too. You don't want to arrive and then get timid about a bit of rain. It also has extra reach for detail shots.
 
That being said, it would be so hard for me to go on a trip without my favorite prime. If you can't leave it behind, take your favorite prime and the 10-24mm.
 
If there was a way to sneak the tiny 27mm into my bag as a third lens for street photos, I'd do that too. It weighs nothing, takes no space, and makes the X-T1 look almost like a point and shoot on the streets.

Not really sure if Modern Architecture is where this belongs, but it's the best fit out of the current topics!
 
Gateway Arch, St. Louis, MO.
June, 2015.
www.orendarling.com
Fuji X-T1, XF 10-24mm @ 10mm, f/11, 1/1000s, ISO 200.
 
 
 
 
 

I have 3 copies of the Helios 44-2 that I love. One I've reversed the front element on as just a playful "special effects" lens. Of the other two, I prefer my "zebra" copy, but both are good.
 
One thing that you should note if the Helios intrigues you is that quality control on the manufacturing for these was always a bit sloppy. The best strategy for getting a good one is to:
 
1. Always buy from sellers with great eBay ratings.
2. Be patient, there are tons of these listed every day on eBay. Don't feel like you've got to buy one right now the first time you browse. That can be a recipe for overspending.
3. Always confirm condition (no oil on aperture blades, no fungus, etc.) through a question to the seller.
4. In my opinion, the older the better with the Helios lenses, but balance that with condition.
5. My strategy was to buy 3 and be happy if one of them was really good. Luck was on my side and 2 were great, 1 was OK.
 
Also note that the swirly bokeh can be cool, but don't expect to put that lens on your camera and start taking a ton of crazy bokeh shots right away. Certain backgrounds, light, and other factors influence whether or not you get the swirly bokeh with a Helios. That being said, the bokeh on these lenses at f/2 is simply outstanding if you get a good copy, whether it swirls or not.

Just make sure you emphasize that it was on sale and you got such a good deal that you couldn't pass it up! 
 
I have all the lenses I need for now, but it's taking some serious willpower to not buy the 16mm. In preparation for my eventual breakdown and purchase of that lens, I bought my wife an X-E1 and put a 27mm on it. Fits in her purse and it's a serious upgrade on the crappy camera on her cellphone that she's insisted on using until now.
 
So... that means if anything ever goes wrong with my X-T1, I can use her X-E1 as a backup. Or I can borrow it for street photography. And most importantly, when I do lose control of my willpower and buy the 16mm, I can say "look at the new lens I bought for us!"

This is heavily biased due to my general preferences in locations and topics as a photographer, so it will not be the most versatile or best option for many people, but the three primes which are always in my bag are the 23, 27, and 35. I know those are clustered tightly together in focal length, but here is why. The 23 is on my camera most of the time. The 35 has a certain magic to it and is the perfect step up in terms of field of view for me. The 27 is so small and compact that in a way it transforms the camera into a totally different form factor for street shooting. The 18 would also do that, but my preference at the moment just happens to be between the 23 and 35 for street photos. 
 
If I get more comfortable shooting with non-pancake lenses in the street, then I could see myself going for either the 16 or something longer than the 35 depending on my subject on a given day.
 
I have looked at the 56 and it just doesn't fit my style of shooting enough to justify buying one at that price even though it is a beautiful lens, but sometimes I do carry an adapted Helios 44-2 if I want that focal length on hand and it cost me about $70 for a really nice copy.

Here are some test shots of flowers taken with my X-T1 and a modified vintage 1970's Helios 44-2, 58mm lens at f/2. I love the old Helios lenses as portrait lenses too. I keep a couple unmodified versions on hand for more general use.

Billingham Hadley Pro. I can carry my X-T1, 18-135mm, 10-24mm, 23mm, 27mm, and 35mm with room for extra batteries, iPad, cleaning kit, filters, and a Helios 44-2 if I want. It's practically bulletproof too. I've never felt alarmed by weather or other conditions with my gear in this bag. It's not cheap, but worth every last penny for the quality and insurance it provides. It also cleanly fits under the seat in front of me on airplanes.

Billingham Hadley Pro. I can carry my X-T1, 18-135mm, 10-24mm, 23mm, 27mm, and 35mm with room for extra batteries, iPad, cleaning kit, filters, and a Helios 44-2 if I want. It's practically bulletproof too. I've never felt alarmed by weather or other conditions with my gear in this bag. It's not cheap, but worth every last penny for the quality and insurance it provides. It also cleanly fits under the seat in front of me on airplanes.

I went Switzerland in November and the 10-24 rarely came off my X-T1. The wide end at 10mm was a very welcome thing to have for incredible mountain landscapes. For street and architecture, 10mm was generally too wide, but my favorite prime is the 23mm, so I had that focal length covered if I didn't want to change lenses. The stabilization is very helpful if you plan to take indoor architecture photos of historic places, such as cathedrals. Maybe that's not in your plans, but I found myself doing a number of low light f/8 to f/10 shots in large indoor spaces and OIS really bailed me out and allowed for good depth of field without cranking the ISO too high. Didn't feel like I had to leave any shots behind even if some weren't perfect in the end, but if I were trying to take those shots with the prime I'd either be sacrificing the DOF which really makes an architecture shot in a space like that or I'd have been carrying a tripod, which takes the weight argument out of the picture.

Here are some test shots of flowers taken with my X-T1 and a modified vintage 1970's Helios 44-2, 58mm lens at f/2. I love the old Helios lenses as portrait lenses too. I keep a couple unmodified versions on hand for more general use.

Here are some test shots of flowers taken with my X-T1 and a modified vintage 1970's Helios 44-2, 58mm lens at f/2. I love the old Helios lenses as portrait lenses too. I keep a couple unmodified versions on hand for more general use.

Hi everyone,
 
Just finished my MFA in Electronic and Time Based Art at Purdue University. I first picked up a "real" camera a little over a year ago when I bought my Fuji X-T1, so I've still got a lot to learn. I shoot exclusively with that. My favorite lenses are the XF 23mm, 35mm, and 10-24mm, but I do use the XF 27mm and 18-135mm WR sometimes and have three vintage Helios 44-2 f/2 58mm lenses, one of which is modified with a reversed front element. 
 
Black and white is most intriguing to me in terms of my own work, but I enjoy good photography in all forms. I really like shooting landscape/nature and architecture, but I'm an equal opportunity photographer, I'll shoot anything that is interesting at any given moment. 
 
I have a photo blog that I usually update twice per day, but will eventually move to once a day when I get through my work from last year. 
 
Oren Darling Photography

Here are some test shots of flowers taken with my X-T1 and a modified vintage 1970's Helios 44-2, 58mm lens at f/2. I love the old Helios lenses as portrait lenses too. I keep a couple unmodified versions on hand for more general use.

Here are some test shots of flowers taken with my X-T1 and a modified vintage 1970's Helios 44-2, 58mm lens at f/2. I love the old Helios lenses as portrait lenses too. I keep a couple unmodified versions on hand for more general use.

I have both the 35mm and 23mm and love them both. I tend to prefer a wider FOV, so the 23mm or my 10-24mm are by far my most frequently used lenses, but every time I put the 35mm on my camera, I end up telling myself I need to find reasons and situations to use it more often. In terms of sharpness, I'd say it's a tossup. Some people claim that the 35mm is sharper, but on a good day with good subject matter, I can't tell the difference. I get great color from both, too. I'd give the 35mm an edge on the bokeh, but in the end it all comes down to personal preference on the FOV.