Should I trade the 16-80mm for the 56mm 1.2

[Choccy]

As the title says,

 

I have the X-T4

 

Should I trade in the 16mm-80mm kit lens which is only f4 and get the 56mm 1.2? 

Or should I just buy a 35mm 1.4 ?

I've been doing a lot of portrait work of late and been using my 23mm f2 but I know I need another lens, what is the better option?

The 35mm 1.4 i know is older and not weather sealed compared to the f2 version but I do want a 1.2 or 1.4 lens.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Choccy

[dward]

I would encourage you to consider the 50 f2. I think the 23/50 combination makes a nice pairing. The 50 f2 is weather resistant, focuses fast and takes nice portraits and detail shots. Images from one to the other would share a common “look” IQ wise.

You did say you wanted the 1.2 or 1.4 and if you have your heart set on the faster 1.4/1.2, the 56 would give you a 23/56 pairing, equivalent of a classic 35/85 combination.  Hard to beat for your stated purposes.

I do have the 23, 35 and 50 f2 and I tend to use my 35 as a stand-alone lens for when I don’t want to bother with or worry about changing out lenses.

Best of luck with your decision,

 

Dave

 

 

[Choccy]

On 12/16/2020 at 8:45 PM, dward said:

I would encourage you to consider the 50 f2. I think the 23/50 combination makes a nice pairing. The 50 f2 is weather resistant, focuses fast and takes nice portraits and detail shots. Images from one to the other would share a common “look” IQ wise.

You did say you wanted the 1.2 or 1.4 and if you have your heart set on the faster 1.4/1.2, the 56 would give you a 23/56 pairing, equivalent of a classic 35/85 combination.  Hard to beat for your stated purposes.

I do have the 23, 35 and 50 f2 and I tend to use my 35 as a stand-alone lens for when I don’t want to bother with or worry about changing out lenses.

Best of luck with your decision,

 

Dave

 

 

Thanks Dave, Gives me plenty to ponder over. 

 

I actually just did a photo shoot with the 16-80mm and the images came out really nice lol

[bugernot]

What kind of portraits do you take? Is WR necessary in your environments? Do you shoot a lot in low light- why do you need a fast lens? Back in the day my first DSLR was a Nikon d70 with the 18-70 lens for weddings and studio portraits, it served the clients very well, and took some of my best wedding shots with it. I still use that same lens when I *have* to shoot dslr. If you're happy with the look of 16-80, which is a very nice versatile lens, stick with it for awhile and gather data on what focal length you most use for portraits. All the lenses mentioned here are good it's really down to the ideal selection for your purpose.

[jlmphotos]

The 35 1.4 was my first lens when I went into the Fuji system in 2012 or '13.  To this day I still say:  "you'll have to pry my 35 1.4 from my cold dead fingers".  I also owned the 56 1.2. I bought it for a particular shoot.  I had three back to back portrait sessions in a beautifully lit church.  Big windows down the sides, gorgeous skylights, just wonderful afternoon light streaming in.  The 56 1.2 REFUSED to lock focus on my subjects most of the time I was using it! Very frustrating and embarrassing.   I wound up putting it away and using my 18-55 and my 35 1.4 and successfully finished my  three back to back shoots.  That was on a Sunday.  On Monday I returned the 56 1.2, and eventually I wound up with the 60mm 2.4 macro to replace it.  Now, the 60 2.4 isn't the fastest but what I purchased it for, macro work, it was fine.  BTW  I was shooting the event with my X-T2 with what at the time was the latest firmware in case you were wondering.

That's my background with my entry into the 56 1.2.  It's a beautiful lens but just not for me.

[Herco]

There are portraits and there are portraits... Meaning to say there are a lot of different setups that may requires different lenses.  The 16-80 is definitely capable of some fine portraits when used correctly. When you wish to keep the flexibility of a zoom lens, but require some more distinct bokeh and a shallower depth of field, consider exchanging it for the 16-55/2.8. It's the classic reporter zoom lens, but wide open at 55mm it doubles as a very capable portrait lens. Should you wish to hold on to the 16-80 you might want to look at the 50-140/2.8. Part of the trinity reporter lenses, but very well suited for all kinds of portraits.

In the Fuji line-up there are a few specialist portrait lenses like the two versions of the 56/1.2, the 50/1.0 and the 90/2.0. Only when you do a lot of (paid and/or studio) portrait work it makes sense in buying these. Outdoors in regular lighting you usually have to stop down anyway...

For occasional portrait work there are a few generic lenses that can be used for portraits, such as the 35 (both the 1.4 and the 2.0) for wider portraits and half-body shots and the 50/2.0 and the 60/2.4 for head shots. The 23 (1.4 and 2.0) works well for full body shots and environmental portraits where you wish to show some of the surroundings/context of the subject. Your 16-80/4.0 and the 18-55/2.8-4 also fit well into this category.

Finally, unless you plan to work in very harsh conditions, WR doesn't mean a lot. When I was using Fuji professionally, I had a favourite 23/1.4 (non-WR) that outlived a few WR lenses. With some common sense, WR doesn't make any difference. Most amateurs I know are meticulous with their gear and don't get into situations where it could make a difference.

[Choccy]

Thanks Guys.

 

I do mostly street portraits and started doing outdoor urban style shoots and in Spring will do more scenic shoots also.

I live in London so it does tend to rain a lot and it's handy to have a WR lens as sometimes it can shower or rain randomly etc

I want to do more night work hence the 1.2 apertures and also get more light in on over cast days 

[Kenl]

I personally don’t care for the slow focus of the 1.4 lenses. Wound up with the 23f2 , 50f2 and the 90 f2.  A lot of people love there 1.4 just wasn’t for me when doing street photography. I also have the 56. Yes it’s a little picky on focus but man when it does it takes a great picture.

[jduqhoff]

I’m thinking in the other direction. Considering trading my 18-55 and 85mm f1.8 (Viltrox) for the 16-80. I have a 23 1.4 and a manual 50 1.4, so I think the extra zoom range is better to have than the longer fast prime. Also, I like the 16mm length and don’t have that now....

[Choccy]

Ignore

Edited April 23, 2021 by Choccy
error

[Choccy]

On 4/10/2021 at 9:07 PM, jduqhoff said:

I’m thinking in the other direction. Considering trading my 18-55 and 85mm f1.8 (Viltrox) for the 16-80. I have a 23 1.4 and a manual 50 1.4, so I think the extra zoom range is better to have than the longer fast prime. Also, I like the 16mm length and don’t have that now....

The 16 -80 is a good all round lens to be fair, especially in good light conditions

[Klaus Armitter]

50mm will be better, or the 35mm.

[AmyR]

The best advice I got about getting another lens came from someone at B&H during a webinar. They encouraged me to rent the lens I was interested in and play around with it before purchasing it. I looked online and it’s pretty easy to find places you can rent from. Some will even ship them to you. I am still really new to photography but will be taking this advice once I’m ready to invest in a second lens. I have the same camera and lens that you do. Hope this helps, I think it’s a great option before spending money on a lens and then finding out you would have liked another one better. 

[BobJ]

I don't see why you want to trade in the 16-80, unless you want a very shallow depth of field, in which case go for the 56mm. The 16-80 is perfectly OK for portraits and works well at f4.