shorg

I almost bought the 16mm during the last sale, but resisted at the time. I have the 10-24mm and the 35mm. I think if I could only have one of the two combos, I'd go with the 16 and 35. I don't often want to go wider than the 16mm and from what I am seeing the IQ is better. I like the 10-24mm, but it is missing something for me.

I love the 16mm too - but not its size on my X Pro 2. I'd love an f2 version
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have the 35 and 23 f1.4, both of which are terrific lenses. However, my favorite in rendering, contrast, color, sharpness is still the 16 f1.4. I can see how the variances in the lenses may make one person prefer one over the other. It's all good. But I am really enamored by what the 16mm produces.

I really like the 100-400mm. I use it a lot for wildlife and birds. I have not yet tried it for sports, but I've been very happy with it tracking birds in flight. I've just been using the standard tracking as I haven't had any issues with it tracking. I played with the other modes briefly, but the standard one is hitting at 90% or more keeper rate. It is overall pretty sharp, though it is not as sharp as some of the other Fujifilm lenses. I would say it is as good as or better than other comparable lenses from other brands. I have the Nikon 200-500mm and it is significantly heavier, slower AF, and not quite as sharp. My only complaint, and minor complaint, is I think the OIS isn't quite as good as it could be. Maybe it is me or just perception, but I feel like I can handhold the 200-500mm at a lower shutter speed than the 100-400. One other note, as to be expected, adding the teleconverter to it does slow down the AF some.

I have the 90mm and 2 of the 11mm and 1 of the 16mm extension tubes. The 90mm works really well with them. The only issue with using extension tubes over macro lenses is that you lose focus range. If you're staying at a set distance this won't matter, but if youre walking through nature taking photos at various distances, it can get a little tiring removing and/or adding the tubes. I also hear the 55-200mm works really well with the extension tubes, but I have not tried it yet.

I did see some sample from a user here some time ago.  He used a 1.4 extender with the extension tubes to obtain a 1:1.  Unfortunately the images are no longer showing.