Next Fuji Lens

[acrew09]

I've had my XE-1 for about a year now and love the camera - it's really gotten me into photography. I started out with the 18-55 kit lens, then added the 35mm 1.4 a few months later. While the kit lens is great, I LOVE the way pictures turn out from the 35mm. I think partially its the prime forcing me to better compose my shot, but also there's something special about this lens.

 

I'd like to expand my kit, but am having trouble deciding which way to go. My initial thought was to go with the 14mm, because of the small size and the ability to increase my focal length range into wide angle. I like taking architectural and landscape shots on vacations, and have felt limited sometimes by the 18mm on the kit. I also really like shooting at night though, and the extra stops on the 35mm have been helpful for a non-stabilized lens - so enter the 16mm.

 

The more reviews I read about the 16mm, it seems like a really amazing lens. I'd get the extra focal length, but could potentially use it for more situations. Both to shoot street at night and to shoot people indoors, without the fear of distortion that I might get with the 14mm.

 

On the other hand, when I look at what I use generally walking around when not on vacation, I tend to shoot at either 23mm or 35mm on the zoom. Which leads me to wonder if getting the 23mm or a used X100s might make most sense. It would provide more enjoyment when I'm not traveling, but wouldn't necessarily expand my range of available focal lengths.

 

Sorry for the rambling post -  at the end of the day, I think the ranking of characteristics are 1) lens I love using - the 35mm has a really special quality and 2) expand my focal length range. Appreciate everyone's thoughts and experiences!

 

Here's a link to give an idea of what I like to shoot: 500px.com/wdshuck

[Tikcus]

some, really nice photos there.

 

tbh every lens has a purpose.

 

I normally use either the 35 F/1.4 or the 18 F/2 (I must have a good copy, as have no issues)

My shooting style is different to yours and have never used the wider lenses,

 

My next lens will be the 56F/1.2

 

If you want to compare lenses I'd point you to Fuji comparison tool

[Tikcus]

http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/

[Nick05]

I skipped the 14mm and 16mm and bought the 10-24mm. It covers the wide range and is an excellent lens. I didn't see myself needing the large aperture so the F/4 is fine. I own both the 23mm and the X100T. Both are fantastic. The 23mm is better than the built in 23mm of the X100T. I like the X100T and have used it a lot, but you may be better off with the lens. I think the 23mm is a good option if you find you shoot that focal length. The lens is a bit bigger and heavier than the 35mm.

[deva]

I love the 10-24 because for me there is no wide angle that is too much! It has OIS and is only 1 stop slower than the 14 so in basically every situation, I'd rather have the 10-24 than the 14

 

The 16 1.4 on the other hand, is significantly faster and it also has very close focusing so it would win for me over the 14 as well.

 

That is why I have the 10-24 and the 16 and the 23... 

 

I thought about getting a X100T, but cameras change so much and sensors improve so fast still... I'd rather invest the money into good glass.

[Phil]

As much as I love the 23mm, I'd skip it if I were in your position. It's an amazing lens, but if you already have the 18-55 and 35, I'd go for something different. Right now I have the 18, 23, 35, and 50-230. I like all three primes, and they're different enough that they all have a use and are sufficient for most jobs I take, but I definitely wish I had more range. The 23 has a slightly different look to it (because of the perspective the background falls off a bit more dramatically) but it's subtle. 

 

Based on what you said, I think you're on the right track with the 16mm. It's that extra bit wider than your 18-55, and the fast aperture makes it useful indoors. However, for that price, check out the 10-24mm if you like doing landscapes. Landscapes and people photos are two very different shooting styles, and since you already have an 18mm 2.8 to shoot people indoors, I think you may be better off getting something more specialized that will really give you something extra over your 18-55.

 

And in regards to your 23mm/X100S question, I'd 100% recommend the X100S. Like I said, I love my 23mm, but in hindsight, I wish I'd bought the 56mm instead, and was looking at getting an X100 right now instead of having the 23mm/56mm combo for my X-T1. The 23mm is slightly sharper and a stop faster, but the X100 gets you a second body, a leaf shutter and built-in ND filter, and the perfect tiny travel setup. I would much rather take an X100 when I'm going out with my wife and friends, because it's so much smaller and more discrete - but on the flip side, it's also enough camera to use for paid work. 

 

You could get the 23mm for your X-E1, and then you'd either be bringing a handful of lenses around to swap, or you'd have to choose one and stick with it. If you get an X100, you can fit that and your X-E1 with a lens in about the same amount of space as you would the X-E1 with two lenses. That gets you a second/backup camera, saves you needing to change lenses all the time, and gets you all the benefits of an X100. Personally, I'd either bring just the X100 out with me, or keep it out as my go-to camera and keep the X-E1 handy with a more specialized lens, like the 35mm for portraits and super low light, or the 18-55 when you need the range.

 

Sorry for the long rant. Like I said, since you're concentrating on landscapes and people photos, it really depends where your priorities lie, because those are two very different styles.

 

• I think the 14mm or 10-24mm would work better in tandem with your 18-55. They both add more range, and will give you a drastically different look from your 18-55. They're both decently useable for people and low light, but I think your best approach would be to use them more as landscape and architecture specialists, and plan on your 18-55/35 being the people lenses.

 

• The 16mm is a great choice, but I think that would be more of a lens to replace your 18-55, and would work beautifully with your 35mm. That gives you more or less the same kind of range that your 18-55 has, but with improved low light and depth of field capabilities. The 18-55 probably makes up for the slower aperture with IS, but that doesn't help you when you're shooting people. I don't literally mean the 16mm would totally replace your 18-55, but personally I'd find it a bit redundant to bring the 16 and 35 along with the 18-55, unless you really want to have the zoom available as an option. So I'd see that more as changing your kit, rather than adding range to it.

 

• If you like 23mm, get the X100S. If you're keeping a pretty bare bones rig and want versatility, the 23mm and 35mm are too similar IMHO; however, adding the X100S as your 23mm opens up a lot more options. You have a second/backup body, the most compact travel kit, the option to run two lenses at once, and the benefits of the X100 series. This one wouldn't really be adding range, either, so much as giving you more immediate versatility, and giving you the option of a different shooting style.

[cug]

I shot the XF23 exclusively today and I believe I know now why I don't like that focal length: I find it plain boring. It's too wide for the people shots I'd like to take and too long to be a fun wide angle. I love the XF14 and XF35 btw. 

 

It was a good idea that I sold the X100T, it's just not my thing. 

 

Therefore, I agree with the point made above: if you really want another lens, I'd add something wider or longer. Not a focal length you already have. I'm eyeing the 16 now as I know that I loved shooting the 14mm in Chicago. It took me forever to get used to that lens, but after two days I started "getting it". That really never happened with the XF23. I can use it as much as I want, I still find using it and the results from it just boring. Total mainstream. Great if that's your job (documentary style) but if I like to have fun shooting, the XF23 will stay off the camera for now.

[Phil]

I shot the XF23 exclusively today and I believe I know now why I don't like that focal length: I find it plain boring. It's too wide for the people shots I'd like to take and too long to be a fun wide angle. I love the XF14 and XF35 btw. 

 

That's how I see the 35mm personally. I use it a lot for jobs because it's versatile and my longest prime lens, but as soon as I get the 56mm I don't think the 35 will see much use. I like shooting friends and everyday stuff for personal work and I love the 23mm, because I see in 23mm so framing is really easy for me. I also find it wide enough to be useful indoors, but not so wide that it has that wide angle look. And compared to the 35mm, the 23's just wide enough to get a more dramatic background falloff while still having that shallow depth of field look. 

 

It'll be interesting to see how I deal with the 56. Like most people, I learned on a 50mm on an APS-C DSLR, and haven't shot anything like that since I switched to Fuji. In the summer I second shot my friends' wedding and was using the main photographer's Nikon gear. Using the 85 1.4 felt like coming home - I took to it right away and had so much fun shooting with it. So I'm thinking I'll have a blast with the 56.

[KendraB]

I just bought my first Fujinon XF series lens. I went with the XF 23 f/1.4 R, as I plan to start doing some street photography. I have been very happy with this lens, but I want something wider, so I can do landscape work. I have just placed an order for the XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR lens, and believe it will be a great addition.

 

I am trying to keep my system compact, and easy to carry. My third lens choice will be an XF 35 mm f/2 WR lens, and I will order one as soon as it shows up in my area. I will be travelling a lot this summer, and the 16-23-35 mm lens set will work for 90% of what I am currently doing.

 

[frod]

The samyang 12mm is well worth considering for a wide lens. Compact, and for me its price is exactly relative to how often I use it. I personally don't see a lot of point in spending more on a wide than a normal.

[h2odog]

I love the IQ and compactness of the 14 2.8. It is certainly wide enough for me is just a pleasure to shoot with. Getting it for $475 in like new condition was a great find.

[acrew09]

Thank you for all of the great thoughts, I really appreciate everyone's experiences and advice

 

I ended up going with the 16mm. It's a fantastic lens from my first day with it - great feel, really like the clutch mechanism for manual focusing, and I think the weight issue is a little overblown. The close focusing has already been useful taking candid photos of my wife indoors. Will post further thoughts as I get used to it, but here's a picture from the Met today. I feel like it's extremely sharp and gives great contrast - even better than the 35mm!