fuji XC35mm or xc16-50

[jamescycling1g]

Hi

 

have xm1 with a 16-50 xc OISII. Wondering if the new XC35mm will add anything. Is it that unique in image quality from what I already have, to justify?

 

james

Edited August 12, 2020 by jamescycling1g
Error grammar

[Herco]

The main difference will be due to the faster aperture. The 16-50 is at 35mm around f4.5, which is quite a bit smaller aperture than the f2 of the XC35. It will allow you to shoot images with better background separation (out-of-focus background) and that can change the look of an image completely. Of course it requires you to use the larger aperture (shoot at f2 or f2.8) and focus carefully on the subject and it will only work with subjects clearly seperated from the background. Less when you shoot landscapes.

I wouldn’t expect a big difference in image quality though. The XC lenses are very nice budget lenses and offer surprisingly good value for money. You might want to try a comparably priced second-hand XF35 f2. Next to the physical quality of a metal construction, there’s a slight improvement in IQ compared to the XC35. The dedicated aperture ring of the XF-lenses is crucial for me, but your mileage may vary...

Edited August 13, 2020 by Herco

[jamescycling1g]

Great, thanks 

[andrei89]

1 hour ago, Herco said:

You might want to try a comparably priced second-hand XF35 f2. Next to the physical quality of a metal construction, there’s a slight improvement in IQ compared to the XC35.

don't know about the second hand market in the Netherlands, but in Austria a used XF35 is 50% more than a new XC35 and other than the outside shell and aperture ring, there is no difference in optics, so there won't be any difference in IQ

to answer to the OP: it depends what you shoot. a fast prime is always nice to have but if you don't use it because you prefer the zoom, then it's irrelevant how good it is

[itchy shutter finger]

I have both lenses, and I like them both. I agree with Herco that you won't see much difference except at larger apertures. Two things I noticed using both lenses is that the XC35 focuses faster than the XC16-50, and the light weight and small size of the XC35 makes for a pleasant rig for mobile shooting. At the end of the day, I find the image quality at wider apertures is slightly better in the corners. 

I find that I shoot differently with the XC35. Without the option to zoom on the fly, I find myself using photographer knowledge, compositional creativity, and my feet instead of the zoom ring.

You probably don't need both lenses, but I don't regret buying both, and the XC35 woke up some of the old photographer in me. That said, I'm glad I kept the XC16-50 for its close-focus capability.