Search the Community

Just throwing this out here for suggestions or insights. I use a X-T2 and currently have a 16mm (as well as other lenses)...I am starting to hike and shoot landscapes mostly of meadows, waterfalls, and occasionally the Smoky mountains. I am a hobbyist who makes enough from photography jobs to pay for my gear and right now I am trying to decide between the new 80mm for macro shots or get the 10-24mm. My question is since I have the 16mm is that enough for landscape (for longer shots I also have the 55-200) or do I need to also get the 10-24mm? I will be shooting more landscapes than macro but if the 16mm will perform what I plan to shoot then I would rather spend my money on the 80mm for taking macro shots on my hiking trips.

XF80 on X-T2 (RAW), tripod, electronic shutter, self timer Developing steps applied: - sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw 10 (sharpening settings 40 / 1,0 / 100 / 40 in the ACR details tab) - demosaicing with Iridient X-Transformer (RAW Process: „more detailed“; sharpening: "none") - in ACR saturation +10-15 - any digital auto-correction has been unchecked/omitted in Iridient/ACR - via Photoshop CC saved to TIF/JPG - no further sharpening applied to the pics with original size (see links below) - output sharpening in PS CC via unsharp mask applied to the smaller pics embedded here for direct view (Amount 50% / Radius 1 Pixel / Threshold 1 Level) - slight cropping of the pics with the bismuth crystal and the bulbs Original size, 5-9 MByte-JPGs (click): Bismuth crystal, @ f5.6 Coffee beans, @ f8 Vintage bulbs (er, including dust...), @ f5.6 downsized: Bismuth crystal, @ f5.6 Coffee beans, @ f8 Vintage bulbs (er, including dust...), @ f5.6 Veeery nice lens (...quite big though :eek:) .