cug

I have to say, that I disagree slightly. I haven't done extensive testing here just yet, but so far I think that the two lenses are only comparable up to f/2.8. Beyond that, the old f/1.4 is plain better across the frame. It might not have the exact same high center sharpness but it stomps the new f/2 in the corners and along the edges from f/4 (or even slightly more open) on.
 
The new one beats the hell out of the old one mechanically though. It feels nearly as good as my M-Rokkor lens. Very solid, compact and just plain "lovely". The old one always felt loose and a bit rattly. 
 
From my perspective after a week of using the new one: if you mostly shoot at f/2 to f/2.8 the new one is great. Mechanically it is far superior to the old in my personal opinion. But overall the old one is optically at least one class above the new.

Well first let me say this may be your first bag but TRUST ALL OF US HERE, it will NOT be your last.  At one point I was up around the 14 mark.  Now, I'm down to ONE backpack, and several messenger style bags -- four I think.  
 
The best thing you can do is go to a store with all your gear and try them.  If you order online, you may get lucky.  That's what I've done, and in some cases I've wound up returning them.
And I say no to the camera case unless you just want to add some bling.

Pixels are much over-rated. A decade and a half back, I was shooting with a Coolpix 990, at 3.34MP. I shot a close-up portrait of a Macaw and a friend wanted a print of it so I gave him a copy of the file. I was shocked when he said he had it printed at 24×36! Eventually, I visited him and was amazed at the quality of the image. From anywhere in his living room where it hung, a casual viewer would never question the lack of detail. Certainly my X-Pro1 would show a lot more crispness and detail if prints were side-by-side and viewed at reading distance. At normal viewing distance, not so much.

Thanks guys for all the advice. I went for the 16-55mm in the end, didn't regret it, we had so little time in so many places not having to change lenses significantly increased my shooting opportunities. The lens itself is an absolute peach, a bit big but you get used to it pretty quickly, after a few days I would say I didn't really notice the weight.
 
Now to process all the images!

XT1 + Fujinon 56/1.2
 
Anna by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr

Here. About 10x more with the 56. I can deal with the size when I have the specialized requirement for the XF56, but I hate the size of the 23 for an always on lens, therefore I use either the 27 or the 35 instead and deal with the different FoV. Or I use the X100T, but that is fairly rare as well. Don't like it all too much.

your requirements are really basic. One small camera body with one small lens attached. Frankly speaking I wonder if you really need a bag altogether.
 
Filters and batteries easily fit in the pockets outside or zipped compartment inside which almost any messenger bag will offer you. The size of the insert certainly would be determined by the size of the messenger which is going to contain it all.
 
I really think that the choice, for you is literally endless. I would simply consider the possibility that you would buy at some stage at least another lens ( maybe my favorite cheap zoom the 50-230mm?  ) in order not to have to buy soon another insert.
 
You can go from cheap to very expensive the sky is the limit
 
http://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20151108075757&origin=y&SearchText=camera+bag+insert
 
https://www.onabags.com/store/small-goods/the-roma.html
 
http://www.natcam.com/products/tenba-byob-7-camera-insert-gry

I'm sorry but there's a lot of nonsense in your post.
It's impossible to have a Fujinon lens front- or backfocusing. This would require a DSLR-style focusing system to "work".
 
The 27mm is f/2.8 and, thus, 2 full stops slower than the 1.4 lenses.
 
No I don't understand why the designers would want to create some weird focal lengths and how this would win over people from DSLRs. That doesn't make any sense.
 
So... whatever you smoked... gimme some or stop it.

I'll join the party
 
Mira, Fuji X-T1, 56 1.2 APD

Tereza , London 2015
 
x100s godox flash and octa softbox  

I'm in the South Bay, so "close enough". I've never really experienced San Francisco as a tourist, but some things are definitely worth it: Twin Peaks if the weather is okay, light is best in the afternoon with the sun behind you when you look towards the city, but there is very often fog or low cloud cover during that time as well. Marine Headlands are great, as is Sausalito. Renting a bicycle and getting around or using cabs (expensive) is a really good way as a car will most likely just get you stuck in traffic instead of seeing something. Palace of Fine Arts is worth a visit, very nice night shooting opportunities there and near the Bay Bridge on Embarcadero. Lands End, Fort Point, The Presidio, Mason Street near Grissy Field gives nice views towards the Golden Gate Bridge, as does Marine Headlands - just from the other side of the Bay. Treasure Island has incredible views towards the city. I found Alcatraz worth going, but only if you really have enough time on your hands. 
 
There is so much to see in SF, it's hard to pinpoint just a few places. A lot of the shots on my Flickr page are from San Francisco, just walking around in areas and taking photos. 
 
Maybe go on Flickr, search for San Francisco and take a look at the photos you like and where the locations are. Google Maps is also a great resource for finding good photography places in a new city.

I'm in the South Bay, so "close enough". I've never really experienced San Francisco as a tourist, but some things are definitely worth it: Twin Peaks if the weather is okay, light is best in the afternoon with the sun behind you when you look towards the city, but there is very often fog or low cloud cover during that time as well. Marine Headlands are great, as is Sausalito. Renting a bicycle and getting around or using cabs (expensive) is a really good way as a car will most likely just get you stuck in traffic instead of seeing something. Palace of Fine Arts is worth a visit, very nice night shooting opportunities there and near the Bay Bridge on Embarcadero. Lands End, Fort Point, The Presidio, Mason Street near Grissy Field gives nice views towards the Golden Gate Bridge, as does Marine Headlands - just from the other side of the Bay. Treasure Island has incredible views towards the city. I found Alcatraz worth going, but only if you really have enough time on your hands. 
 
There is so much to see in SF, it's hard to pinpoint just a few places. A lot of the shots on my Flickr page are from San Francisco, just walking around in areas and taking photos. 
 
Maybe go on Flickr, search for San Francisco and take a look at the photos you like and where the locations are. Google Maps is also a great resource for finding good photography places in a new city.

I'm not a zoom person, so, if you can live with two different X bodies, I'd use:
XF14 (wide and small) OR XF16 (a bit more user friendly focal length but large), X100 series for 23mm + TCL for 50mm equivalent, and XF56 (very fast and great for indoors) OR XF90 (slightly less fast, larger, great for outdoors or large and very bright indoor locations). That being said, lenses and use is a very personal thing, I like to use a single body only when I'm out shooting and are not in a hurry. That means I use combinations like X100T + TCL in the bag (the WCL isn't worth it for me) or X-T1 with 23 mounted and XF56 in the bag. Or X-T1 with just the XF35 mounted and nothing else. Or ... you name it. Endless combinations, but again, I never carry more than two lenses unless I'm on a longer vacation, then it's three.

X-E1 + 35 + 56
 
0030 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0029 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0028 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0027 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0018 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0017 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0016 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0011 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
0008 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr

Something like these:
 
https://www.keh.com/238337/minolta-100mm-f-3-5-macro-rokkor-x-md-mount-manual-focus-lens-55
https://www.keh.com/238342/minolta-100mm-f-4-macro-md-mount-manual-focus-lens-55
 
might give you an idea. Critters need some focal length.
 
Plan on a good tripod as well!

As macro often needs manual focussing anyways, some old adapted macro lenses are great options. There are some fairly cheap ones out there, the more usable ones (mostly the longer focal lengths) are quite expensive though. Still an option to think about.
 
The next option is the Zeiss Touit 50mm lens - an incredibly good macro lens. The main downside is the short focal length, so you need to get SUPER close, nearly touching the object with the lens hood to get to 1:1 magnification. Might not be a problem depending on what you want to do with it, but for critters that isn't great. I have the Touit and it's a wonderful lens. It's by far the sharpest lens I have for the X-Mount, at 2.8 (wide open for it) it's already sharper than for example the 56 gets at any aperture plus it's really really good across the frame unlike most of the Fuji lenses. Can't  compare it to the 90mm which is supposedly incredibly sharp in the center. 
 
Fuji also has a 120mm OIS macro lens on the roadmap for some time next year. I wouldn't expect it come before fall though. Still excited about it and I will likely get that one. I do not own the XF60, but from all I've heard it's a great lens.
 
The next option are the close focus adapters from Fuji - around a hundred bucks for distance rings between lens and body to be able to get closer. That together with a 56 or 90 might be a nice and flexible option as well. I'm planning on getting the 16mm ring to use with the 56 when I only carry a two lens kit (something + the 56). I've read though, that the close focus ring does not work too well with the XF60. 
 
My advise would be to look out for an adapted lens, Minolta Rokkor, Canon FD, old Nikon glass ... in the 100mm range and use it with an adapter. I wouldn't spend more than $200 on such a lens though and prices are going through the roof as the mirrorless systems have given new life to the old lenses. 

Yes the different button and layout between the xpro1, x100t and xt1 is annoying.

but when someone's nose and ears are out of focus because you've focused on the eyes it just looks awful.

Very nice!
 
Here's mine: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-fujifilm-xf35mmf2-r-wr/

HI Guys.
 
I tested the XF35mm f/2 R WR for the last month or so. Check out my thoughts on this very cool lens below!
 
http://jonasraskphotography.com/2015/10/21/xf35mm/
 
Take care.
 
/J

That's the way how to compare Fuji primes with Leica primes. Putting Leica primes on Fuji is not the intended use and reduces the performance noticeably.
 
The different sensor format makes comparing them impossible as the same sensor cannot be used.
 
So... all you contributed to this topic is splitting hairs. Anything on topic maybe?
 
Besides, the OP, from my understanding, asked for the optical quality. I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge.

To answer what I think Shane was getting at...So far I've preferred AF-S with the low burst.  I've tried the continuous focusing mode but it was a little hit and miss.  I've only shot a couple of processionals with the fuji set up, but in decent light single focus worked fine for me.  I usually have two bodies on me...18mm and 35mm...or 23mm and 56mm...just depends a little on the venue.  I know with the AF-C focusing mode it's best to keep it to the 9 AF points in the center and do either the low or high burst mode.  The last one I shot with a x100t in AF-C and the x-t1 with the 35mm on AF-S.
 
I wasn't super familiar with the x100t and found it best to set everything manual on it.  For me when it was in Aperture priority or auto ISO, it made odd choices.  It did fine in AF-C and low burst in good light.  The XT1 did great as well.
 
I've shot on Nikon and Canon...while Nikon has the better AF speed and accuracy overall, I feel like the fuji does just as good as when I was shooting on the Canon 5d MarkIII.  Have fun, try to anticipate what's going to happen next, and have a lot of extra batteries.  

While I like to think about what I'm missing or what I don't like in the current Fuji camera generation, the one thing that drives me completely nuts is that Fuji hasn't been able to come up with a single, consistent, working user experience for their high end X cameras. It shouldn't be so hard to come up with one consistent button layout, one consistent dial layout, one consistent way of displaying menus or Fn selections.
 
Aren't the engineering teams talking to each other? Do they have a different designer per camera? Can't they just lock these folks in a room, turn off the light and see who comes out still walking? Whatever the interface is, whether I like the changes or not, as long as they are consistent in the camera range, it will be a good change. 

Didn't sound like humor to me. More like an always repeated argument why Fuji wouldn't do a compact 23. 

Sorry, but that isn't an argument. They do have an XF23 which is HUGE. That's the main problem. Telling someone who has an ILC system to buy a fixed focal length compact camera, because that is supposed to be the "35mm equivalent" is nonsense.