SGinNorcal

The newer version has WR, better stabilization, a numbered aperture ring (original had ring but you had to look at screen for f-stop), and a lock for the auto setting on the aperature.

I haven't shot with the 18-55 but my 16-80 is my most used Fuji lens due to the super versatile focal range. I don't find it heavy, its very similar in size to the 10-24 and uses the same filter size. The 18-55 is at f4 by around 42mm and the 16-80 is F4 constant throughout. I shoot quite a bit at 16mm and 80mm, I would hate to lose the extremes. But maybe looks at your own shots with the 18-55, are you often at the extremes wanting more?

I love the 16-80 lens. Its a super versatile range, has great build quality, weather sealing, great OIS, is reasonably compact, and has constant aperture. I have primes at 18f1.4, 23f2, 33f1.4, 50f2 and yes, I would agree that ultimate image quality on those prime lenses are better. If that wasn't the case, prime lenses would be pretty pointless. For outdoor, landscape shots in good light, when I'm not sure what focal length I'll need next, its hard to beat the 16-80mm and its my most used lens. Bad light, indoors, go to a f1.4 or f2 lens.

I don't know this camera specifically but most Fuji's set to AFC (auto focus continuous) make more noise. If you aren't shooting actively moving objects, you might switch to AFS (auto focus shutter).

Not sure I know how to describe it. To me, it has a familiar Fuji Gfx look in a wide angle if that means anything to you. It can capture a big wide view with great detail and also has pretty good detail used closer up. It even has pretty good bokeh for this type of lens. Sunstars are kind of ordinary but I haven't played with that too much. AF is a little faster than the 32-64 and seems accurate. I've not used the 23 but for me this lens is exceptional. I've never seen a zoom lens in this focal range anywhere close to this good and I think it would rival the primes in optical quality.

Any X mount should work with the XH2. What lens are you referring too?

You can pick up Fuji's F2 for very little on the used market. The 23, 35, and 50 F2's are great little lenses, have AF, weather sealing, and great optical quality. Typical used prices for any of them are $275-300 and they really aren't dropping anymore. So if you change paths later, they will be worth what you paid for them. Maybe try the MF Rokinon 12mm and the Fuji 35 or 50 to get started. Use the Fuji as your portrait lens where AF might be really useful.

The 70-300 is a great lens but there has to be some compromises made for the small size, weight, and cost. I would think max focal length, wide open, hand held, close object is going to show that. Back in 35mm film days, we used to have a simple rule that shutter speed has to be at least as high as the focal length. So a 70mm shot, 1/70 of a second and 300mm, 1/300 of a second. That "rule" doesn't apply anymore thanks to OIS but the ratio is still pretty valid. As mentioned, most lenses are better stopped down a couple stops, where at 300, you were wide open. Also, ISO 3200 is getting pretty high and you might be seeing noise in there. Its fine to shoot that high when you must have the shot and that's the only way. But I wouldn't want to evaluate clarity at that point. The 70-300 is pretty slow for using indoors. Try it outside in some good light and you might be more impressed.

I don't know why the purple stripe. When you have seen it before, was it on similar photos that have blown out highlights? It looks like high ISO, wide open aperture, just way too much light.

You realize M is manual focus mode? Also, the min focus distance has to be met or no focus. I believe the min focus is longer with the 1.4 attached.

I'm glad you like a 2x heavier, unstabilized lens, it must be challenging to carry and to hold steady. It does appear sharp but the colors look washed out. The 70-300 is really good for its size and weight.

For the OP, I would stop down a stop or two and drop the ISO down quite a bit. Like Dave C says, use a small focus zone.

I have the Gfx50S and XT5. Its surprising how close the XT5 can get to the Gfx. I just uploaded some shots from the North CA coast, I was shooting both. Capture One lists the shots by time of day so going through them alternates for each camera. At times it was easy when I had the 70-300 on the XT5. But when shooting with a shorter focal length on the XT5, its not as noticeable without zooming into the photo. The Gfx will hold much more detail once you punch into the shot. While the Gfx has higher IQ, if I had to own just one, it would be the XT5, its just much more versatile.

I have the GF20-35 and like it very much. I find it tough to shoot ultrawide primes without constantly changing lenses. The usual reduction on optical quality doesn't seem to apply to the 20-35. I'm kind of the opposite, use longer lenses on the XT5 since they are so much smaller.

Do we have to promise to like what you write? I'm kidding. Sounds potentially interesting. Some of us shoot Gfx and APSC.