dannat

i wish they would drop the 100mm section, & make it 200-400, i find 100-200 mostly unusale -its either too close or doesn't get you close enough. im fine with f5.6 at 400mm -no faster needed -it adds too much bulk/weight. actualy id be happy if they made it a prime, either 300/4 or 400/5.6 with OIS

a

some of those unhappy are trying it on Sony FF chips -it wasn't designed to cover this. on aps-c it should be alright 

Not a Fuji user, but I'll chime in.
 
"Where I live there aren't any places which rent out fujinon lenses."
You are deciding between focal lengths, just rent a camera and a lens from any brand.
 
"If I'm gonna invest in a new lens I have to be 100% sure I won't regret it."
Given that you are not familiar with the relative FOVs, that's not going to happen. If you are that worried, the best solution would be the 10-24 zoom.

What follows is subjective, although most people I know are in agreement.
16mm is actually not that wide, especially when it comes to tighter interiors. The speed will be mostly irrelevant for the purposes you mention, unless you take night shots - stars, auroras etc. It is roughly as big, as heavy and as expensive as the 10-24 zoom. So, you better be sure that you need that speed. It is also weather sealed, but depending on how and what you shoot, that might be completely irrelevant.
14mm is great. It is in the beginning of the ultrawide territory, without being an extreme. It is a nice compact lens, easy to carry around. It also has the smallest filter thread of all of the lenses you mentioned, which will result in cheaper filters in case you decide to use those.
12mm is getting really wide. It is great for tight interiors and landscape, but that wide becomes a bit strange for city shots. One can achieve very interesting results, but it will be of limited use. 
The 10-24 zoom is also very nice, although I doubt the usefulness of the OIS. It is nice to have, but at these focal lengths it won't give you as much. The manual focus is fly by wire, which I find to be a big problem for landscape. It also has the largest filter thread.

Personally, I would take the 14mm. 

go the 14mm

Hi all,


I'm new to this forum and want to introduce myself with a few pictures. I am primarily a landscape photographer. Last year I was hiking for two weeks in a remote area in the north of Sweden: Sarek national park. My X-T1 accompanied me with three lenses (14-23-56) and tripod. In the following a few impressions. The image of the northern lights was not easy to frame without an optical viewfinder as the EVF was almost totally black.


View of the Laitaure river delta, 700 m below (14mm, f7.1,  1/45, ISO 200)

Morning view of the Rapadalen valley (56mm, f/8, 1/17, ISO 200)
 

Northern lights above Rapadalen (14mm, f/2.8, 10s, ISO 3200)
 
Feel free to comment or ask questions.
 
Stefan

Tiger (KODAK TRI-X 400) by Jörg Staudt, auf Flickr
 
X-E1 with XC50-230

The 60 with the raynox works the same, but if you are that close it's easier to focus manually and moving the camera back and forward. If you will use it you will need to buy a 39mm filter, if it's a cheap one remove the glass. This is because when the lens retracts the raynox will hit the lens body and will not allow the lens mechanism to work correctly, you need some kind of "spacer" to move the raynox a bit further away. 
If you want some specific test I can do it for you.
 
Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk