Jump to content

Travelling Combo X-T1 and Two Lenses (But Which Ones??)


bhamx2

Recommended Posts

Hi all, 

 

I am going to Australia for 3 weeks towards the end of 2016.

 

By that time I will have upgraded from my Fuji X-E1 (which is getting long in the tooth) to the X-T1 (with vertical grip). I cant decide which road to go down in terms of lenses to accompany the X-T1 on my trip. 

 

Currently I have the 18mm F2 and 35mm F1.4 which served me well in Italy for the most part last summer.

 

However, I dont want to regret missing a shot because of absent focal lengths from my kit. Therefore I was thinking of selling the 18mm and getting the 18-135mm for versatility (amongst other benefits OIS WR etc) and keep the 35mm for situations where I want to get creative with depth of field etc. Alternatively I was contemplating selling both the 18mm and 35mm to get the 16-55mm F2.8 as a do everything lens. 

 

I guess my options are;

 

X-T1 with both 18mm and 35mm (small, light and fast but limited reach) 

X-T1 with both 18-135mm and 35mm (versatile and the option to go fast if needed) 

X-T1 with 16-55mm only (fairly versatile although will the lack of OIS affect me in low light and will 55mm give me enough reach). 

 

Thoughts ?

 

Bhamx2

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the high-ISO performance, I wouldn't be overly concerned about a lack of OIS on the 16-55mm, especially at the wide end. Something else to consider is pairing the 16-55 with the 55-200, which I've found to be a very underrated lens. The quality is excellent. There were a lot of complaints about its slow focusing for a while, but in general I haven't had that issue using it with the X-T1 or anything newer and it's far less expensive with more reach compared to the 50-140. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The current best 2 lens kit for traveling to the very unknown is still the 10-24 and the 18-135. Whatever you point your camera at, you will get a picture of it with these 2 lenses.

 

If you keep your 35 F1.4, you have there also for low light situations. 

 

That is my current setup for traveling light and not know where I would be going or going in a country for the first time. It is very far from being the best quality but for the task of bringing backup memories of your trip, it's perfectly adequate. 

 

Plus the WR on the 18-135 makes it a very competent "do-it-all" lens, you have some wideness and some reach and the 5 stops OIS works like a charm, it focus moderately fast too and doesn't distort too much on either ends and no noticeable vignetting at the widest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks both for the comments.

 

I don't know how much I would use the 10-17 range of 10-24. I suppose I've never felt the need to go wider than 18mm but remember instances where I wanted to capture details that were out of reach so the 18-135mm seems to be the logical purchase.

 

The only reservation that I have is over the optical quality, as I normally shoot exclusively with primes I don't want to be left wanting - this is why I considered the 16-55mm.  

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made some great photos with the 18-135, but I'm currently selling mine because of quality. Not that it's bad, but the other Fuji lenses in my kit are just that much better and I don't use it much anymore. The 55-200 beats it on quality every time in my opinion and I'm not a pixel peeper. If you are used to prime level quality, then I would stick to the 16-55 and 55-200.

 

I traveled to Switzerland and Turkey with the10-24, 18-135, and 35 f/1.4. Recorded some great memories, got some amazing photos that I've printed large format with beautiful results. But looking back on it now I am a little disappointed in some of the shots from the 18-135 that could have been much more than just a digital memory with a different lens. I found myself having to overwork the RAW to get it where I wanted it. Particularly in contrast and fine detail in expansive, deep landscapes in the Alps. Had to hit the Dehaze and other adjustments a bit harder than I would with other lenses.

 

So, if capturing memories is your goal, the 18-135 won't ever let you down. If you are thinking about capturing images to have them professionally printed and/or exhibited at larger sizes when you get back, I'd lean toward something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff. How is the 16-55 in terms of handheld at the short telephoto end ? I've read OIS really makes a difference at longer focal lengths. Memories and the opportunity to create some really nice images - I suppose there's no such thing as a free lunch in terms of quality and massive zoom range.

 

I think I'm leaning towards the 16-55 for days where I'm going out purely with photography in mind and the 35mm for days where I'm out and about and would like to keep a record of my trip.

 

I've read rumours that there might be a 23mm WR around the corner - I think this would be perfect in terms of a flexible fixed focal length for day to day shooting and cataloging of my trip, sometimes I feel 35mm is a touch too long but love the subject isolation !

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're willing to push your ISO up and/or open up your aperture, then I think the 16-55 is fine at the longer end. It took me a while to get more comfortable with using my X-T1 at ISO 3200 or sometimes opening up the aperture a bit more than I had in the past for a landscape, but once I got past those mental biases from my past equipment I had few problems. Also, as ISO performance continues to improve, it will be less and less of an issue in future cameras. 

 

As for the primes, one of my favorite kits that I like to throw into my bag sometimes is the 16, 23, 35, 55-200. Some people will discourage you from owning both the 23 and 35 because they are relatively close together. Nothing wrong with that opinion, but I think they complement each other very well and for me, owning both is perfectly reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rumored 23 F2 is clearly something I am looking forward to, if it could get WR that would be even better but otherwise, I can live with just a smaller version than the F1.4.

 

Another way to look at if you don't mind the manual focusing is grab some legacy FF lenses like: 24 F2 or F2.8, 50ish F2 and something along 105 to 135 F2.8. If you grab both a focal reducer and just a simple adapter you would get the following:

 

- 24mm F1.4

- 36mm F2

- 50ish mm F1.4

- 75ish mm F2

- 105 to 135 mm F2

- 158 to 200 mm F2.8

 

All this with just 3 lenses, 2 adapters and 1/2 focal reducer.

 

I am currently going for that setup for moments when I don't need the AF and would like to take the time to just take a picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to spend time in Canada with the XT-1 and 14, 23, 35, 56 primes.  Seemed like all I did was change a lens, take two steps and change a lens.  Not fun.

This fall I spent six weeks in Paris with the XT-1 and 16-55 plus 55-200.  Each day started with the 16-55 mounted on camera and 55-200 at the ready.  Walking all day with this setup was just great, I never got tired and the lenses covered all situations in encountered.  Inside buildings I found that ISO 3200 and 6400 were very acceptable, and in some cases I tried some panos at f2.8, ISO 6400 at 1/60 sec.  I have sold two of these already.  The XT-1 is such a lovely camera and when I paired it with the lenses mentioned above it was the perfect combo for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I wouldn't go for the zoom lenses you consider. With the 18 in your kit, you have a very nice walk around option, if you want a small setup that you can stuff into your coat pocket on some occasions where you don't want to carry around your entire set. You wouldn't be able to do with with either of the zoom lenses. 

 

If you think you need something more tele beyond the 35, you could get the 55-200 (a very nice lens in terms of quality with a good reach, albeit big compared to your primes) or the 60 (adding some nice closeup options, light and small) or you could even consider the XC 16-50. 

 

Personally I'd go for the 55-200. I'm actually very often traveling with the 18, 35 and 55-200 (even though I also have the 14, 27 and 60).

Edited by flesix
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been happy with the 18-135mm. It is extremely versatile. I'm wondering if there are some quality control issues based on the comments here. It is the one lens I had no intent on buying, but ended up getting it on reviews from other sites. Mine is sharp and seems at least as good as the 18-55 and 55-200. As others mentioned, it depends on what you plan to shoot and how you do it. I have quite a few lenses myself, so more to choose from, and if I were going to Australia I'd bring the 35mm f/1.4, 18-135mm, and 10-24mm. That would cover from 10-135mm and have a fast, normal lens and would work well for what I'd shoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would keep what you have (including the x-e1) and spend the money during the trip on experiences instead. The gains for sight-seeing / record photography from the gear you have to the newer stuff is likely to mean very little to your end results. The missed opportunities to do stuff you might not otherwise be able to do are priceless. Not to mention that learning a new camera and lenses takes more time than you'd expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep myself from converting my ILC into bridge camera with this good lens, I'm affraid it makes me even more lazy. ;)

the downside of a all purpose lens like this is you tend to become lazy and zoom instead of looking for the best place or angle to take the photo. They are more about convenience than anything and that is probably why most people go back home thinking the photos could have been better.

 

I would keep what you have (including the x-e1) and spend the money during the trip on experiences instead. The gains for sight-seeing / record photography from the gear you have to the newer stuff is likely to mean very little to your end results. The missed opportunities to do stuff you might not otherwise be able to do are priceless. Not to mention that learning a new camera and lenses takes more time than you'd expect.

valid point and a good idea. You may be able to do some experiences that get you close enough or result in better photos with your current gear than you would if you just bought new gear. If you weren't planning on this already, I'd look into this first before buying new gear. Edited by Nick05
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been happy with the 18-135mm. It is extremely versatile. I'm wondering if there are some quality control issues based on the comments here. It is the one lens I had no intent on buying, but ended up getting it on reviews from other sites. Mine is sharp and seems at least as good as the 18-55 and 55-200. As others mentioned, it depends on what you plan to shoot and how you do it. I have quite a few lenses myself, so more to choose from, and if I were going to Australia I'd bring the 35mm f/1.4, 18-135mm, and 10-24mm. That would cover from 10-135mm and have a fast, normal lens and would work well for what I'd shoot.

 

This very well could be the case with the 18-135mm. It is one of the few XF lenses that is not made in Japan, so quality control might not be as tight with it. Some people absolutely love this lens and I am slightly biased because I typically shoot with primes for a lot of focal lengths, but I'm not a pixel peeper and I immediately notice a lack of contrast in the fine details on landscapes that other lenses don't seem to have trouble with. It's pretty sharp for me too, but that contrast issue is a deal breaker for my shooting style. I still find it to be superior to any other "do everything" kit zoom with this much range that I've used, but it's purely a casual shooting, poor weather lens for me now. If I get a chance, I'll try another copy of it to compare to mine to test the potential quality control issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would keep what you have (including the x-e1) and spend the money during the trip on experiences instead. The gains for sight-seeing / record photography from the gear you have to the newer stuff is likely to mean very little to your end results. The missed opportunities to do stuff you might not otherwise be able to do are priceless. Not to mention that learning a new camera and lenses takes more time than you'd expect.

 

This is a fair point about the lenses in terms of knowing how the visualize the scene with the focal lengths I already have. In terms of the camera for a while now I have been shooting manually (exposure, not focus) and the dials on the X-T1 are a big draw. I'm also looking for improvements in focus speed and accuracy (especially in low light) over the X-E1 with phase detect pixels. The larger more complex EVF is also a big draw. Building on these reasons I guess I was looking to make the most of the body with a WR zoom lens. 

 

I'm already invested in a line of prime lenses and cant afford to be carte blanche and completely adjust my line up unfortunately. 

 

In an ideal world I would have the X-T1 with a versatile 23mm 1.4 prime (preferably WR) for a compact take anywhere package and a 16-55mm 2.8 (preferably OIS) for when I could do with extra width or reach or in situations where I dont mind the heft. 

 

We've saved for this trip so money isn't really an issue, we are more time limited with only three weeks available. 

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

My other concern in that case would be weight. Some of the zooms (especially the WR ones) can get pretty heavy over a longer period. Last thing I'd want on holiday is my carry to be laborious. Swap the 35mm for the F/2 for the WR and look at the 16? I don't really feel that reach is important or worth the weight in such an open country.

Edited by frod
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereabouts in Aus are you going? What do you plan to do and what do you like to shoot?

 

We are going along the east coast - Sydney to Brisbane (via car) then Brisbane to Cairns (via plane). The urban areas and coastal regions will be our main focus but we plan on making detours inland along the way to see the national parks. My interests lie in capturing the extent of urban and natural landscapes whilst being able to pick out interesting elements of each. I'm not so interested in the human element or 'street photography' as such. 

 

Essentially I want to look back at my photographs (impressive landscapes / cityscapes etc) and think wow that was an amazing place not just have a load of snaps per se. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to AUS myself and having similar thoughts. For me it might be 10-24 (definitely best range for vast landscapes), 35 1.4 (low light), 55-200 (animals) and undecided about 18-135 (for short "you never know" trips in a small bag). 18-135 more versatile than 18-55 although I really love the latter as "always on". If not 18-135 then 60 2.4 for macro.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...