Starting again from scratch

[David_miller70]

So, I used to have an X-t2, 10-24, 23 and 35 1.4 and 56 1.2. 

Then I had an unsavoury rush of blood to the head and traded it all in to enter another marque. Some 9 months later and it is not working out for me so I’ve just agreed a deal to sell the other kit, which will allow me to start again from scratch with a reasonable sum of money in hand. I need a system for my landscapes, cityscapes, dog photography and pictures of the wife and kids when they occasionally agree.

I think I’m decided on the x-t4, given that I did really like my x-t2. I think my only complaints was in the focusing department.

For my landscape stuff, I loved the old 10-24 I had before so it would be easy to just get the new WR version. But watching a few reviews it seems that the much larger, heavier, more expensive, unable to use filters, 8-16 is significantly sharper, which I like. The 14 and 16 are not wide or flexible enough. The WA zoom will get the most use.

The next most use will likely come from the mid-focal length. Both the 23 and 35 f1.4 I had before were good. I liked the 56 1.2 when it achieved focus so could go for that or the APD version? How about the 16-55 f2.8 though.

For the longer ranger stuff I could go 50-2140 2.8, the cheaper, slower 55-200, or the seemingly excellent 90 f2.

Sooo many choices and once again, I’ve told myself I want to stick with a max of three lenses if possible.

Any thoughts?

Best, David

 

 

[itchy shutter finger]

David - I went through a lens evaluation exercise like this a few months ago. I decided to evaluate photos on hi-res internet photo sharing sites, and I studied several thousand photos. One of the main takeaways for me is to not let youtube reviewers pick my lenses for me because my detailed observations aligned with exactly *none* of them.

I recommend you develop a list of criteria by which you will select your new lenses, and do a similar exercise studying photos, and note which of them have image quality that you like. I could tell you which lenses impressed me the most, but you are not buying lenses to please me; you need to find the lenses that please you, and fit your other criteria. 

If you study a large sampling of these photos, you may be surprised at some of these lenses, and you will be absolutely star-struck at some. 

[Herco]

I agree with @itchy shutter finger to make your own assessment of what you need, but some words of advice re. pixel peeping. I'm a professional fashion and make-up portrait photographer based in Switzerland. I frequently give workshops for enthusiasts and it strikes me that many of them are obsessed with "what is the best...?". The true answer is of course "it depends...".

There's a lot debate about 'sharpness' of lenses and admittedly, when you look at 100% or even 200% on a monitor you'll likely see differences between lenses. Not so much in the center, but mostly towards the edges and corners. However, when you look at the whole image in print or on screen, differences are either minute or even invisible. Raise your hands when you frequently print 20x30 inch or bigger... Very few do.

The most striking example I had last year when somebody told me he sold his XF 18mm/f2 although with huge regrets. He loved the lens, he shot some of his best images with that lens, but many people (incl. Youtubers) told him it was the worst lens in the XF ecosystem. I advised him to buy back that lens and enjoy it rather than pixel peep it.

In fact, one of the most beloved Fujinons is the XF35/f1.4. Many rave about this lens because it produces this 'magic' quality. In fact, this 'magic' is the result of some optical flaws. On the test bench the XF35/f2 is much better, but it lacks that 'magic'. 

I personally prefer primes over zooms. Simply because a prime forces you to think twice about the framing and therefore composition. With a zoom most people just zoom in/out until they have covered the scene and then press the shutter. A prime may force you to take a step forward, backward or even change your view angle completely. That usually results in better images. I recognize that zooms are more flexible in situations where you can't change your standpoint. 

Back in the days when I was shooting with Fuji a lot, I loved the Zeiss Touit 12mm for landscape. It had that same 'quality of magic' that the 35mm/f1.4 has. Two other Fujinon primes come to mind as superb: the 16/1.4 and the 90/2. They are really above the rest of the range. The 16-55 is a very good general purpose lens, but for specialist portrait work I would always prefer the 56 (and of course the 90).

Even when you only want two or three lenses, don't think that you need to cover all focal lengths by getting zoom lenses. It depends on your style of shooting and your ability to improvise. A few years ago I went on a personal trip to Colombia with only my X-Pro2 and the 23 and 50 f2 primes. Some of my most precious images where from that trip. Even though the 23/f2 is not a particular sharp and contrast-rich lens.

But when you decide on the trinity of zooms (8-16, 16-55 and 50-140) there's nothing wrong with that either. It's just a heavy kit to carry around and a lot of money that gets close to full-frame territory. But that opens up a whole different debate...

Edited August 26, 2021 by Herco