Jump to content

If you only had 3-4 fuji lenses what would they be?


Recommended Posts

Hey all, 


I am pretty new to the form as I just bought my first Fuji x-E2 (actually still waiting for it to arrive). I am looking at getting 3-4 lenses but am really undecided on what to get? I used my canon gear for years and usually shot a bit of everything.. Landscape, portrait, second shooter at weddings. 


So, if you could only have 3-4 lenses what would you have?  And also what style of photography do you shoot?


Thanks for all of your help


Cheers and Happy shooting!!

Edited by wben25
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on the new camera. I also shoot a little bit of everything. You definitely want to get at least one of the fantastic primes. The 18-135mm is a good lens, though a little large compared to the 18-55, for an all purpose lens. It really depends on what you like to shoot. Based on what you said above, I'd go with: 10-24mm, 35mm, 90mm, and either the 55-200mm or the 50-140mm. That way you have wide for landscape, fast primes, and a zoom.


For me, if I could only choose 4:





Edited by Nick05
Link to post
Share on other sites

You need a wide, a normal and a telephoto.

My wide is the 16mm (but the 14mm is another good choice. Slower but wider, smaller and lighter. And the 18mm f2 is a good, small, low-priced alternative with a 28mm full-frame equivalent field of view)

My normal lens is the 35mm f2 (but you could have the slightly-wider 23mm or the 35 f1.4)

My telephoto is the 56mm, which is great for portraits (but people also like the super-sharp but bigger and heavier 90mm)

My fourth lens is a camera - the X100T. Which is why I don't have the all-purpose 23mm lens: this camera does that job and has some extra benefits besides - small, silent, fast flash sync.


This chart, from Ken Rockwell, is very useful. Bear in mind it's talking full-frame focal lengths.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Warwick
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot a bit of everything with my Canon gear, though mostly wildlife.
Could probably live with 5;


A wide



Fast primes

24/f1.4 or 35/f2



Long Zooms




Things like the 12/f2 (samyang), 90/f2 and which ever of the 24/35 that was not chosen would be close runner ups and potential purchases later :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the 55-200 is automatically included in any list for me. The image quality is a tier above the 18-135 and it has more reach. Aside from that, there are a lot of ways I could go with this. I shoot a lot of landscape, nature, architecture, but I also shoot whatever is around me at the time.


One of my personal favorites for a limited travel package is:



35 f/1.4



A fair amount of the time, I go also go with a prime-heavy lineup in my bag consisting of:




35 f/1.4



For a zoom-heavy lineup, one of my favorites is:



16-55 or 18-55


Maybe add the 27 for street given it's cheap and adds almost zero weight.


I don't put too much emphasis on the WR lenses in most of my bag configurations. It's a nice feature that's an extra insurance policy for dust and moisture, but I put a great deal of trust in my bag. As of now, there's a lot of great lenses that are not offered with WR, so I treat that as an added bonus and use a bag that I have complete trust in so that a bit of bad weather doesn't keep my camera indoors.

Edited by Nero
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still happy with the three original lenses: 18/2, 35/1.4, and 60/2.4 - even though I have expanded my lens set, I use these the most. They fit in my smallest bag with a body! They are all still excellent lenses, even the 18/2 which some people seem to think is "not as good as the zoom" - I strongly disagree - esp. @ f2.8.


That being said - I often use my 18-55 zoom for the OIS and convenience when traveling. When I do that I take a Rokinon 12/2 and an ancient (1968) Nikkor-H 85/1.8 w/adapter which fit in the bag (by themselves). Both of these lenses excel in the way that I use them.


I certainly could see myself using a 14/2.8, 23/1.4, and 56/1.2 combo, but that will have to wait.


If sports and/or action, BIF photography are on the schedule, the Fuji bag gets left home for my Nikons. Sorry about that, but I still believe high-performance DSLRs (and the exotic primes that I can rent as needed) are better tools for those jobs.

Edited by Max_Elmar
Link to post
Share on other sites

My normal traveling kit is 10-24, 18-55, 55-200.


At home I am mostly using 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and 90/2.


I hate changing lenses in the field, and usually travel with 2 bodies. (X-T10, and X-E1 (or X-Pro1).


Wiildlife and long lenses are still Nikon territory for me, and Architecturals with a Sony A7II and Leica 16-18-21 tri-elmar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I normally photograph landscape, architecture, cityscape, trains, cars, aircraft, nature. Minimal portraiture, no sports anymore, wildlife/birds is on hiatus until I pick up a 100-400.


So for me:

  1. 14mm or 16mm (just got the 16 - really love the 14)
  2. 23mm or 18-55 (depending on mood)
  3. 56mm
  4. 90mm or 55-200

generally, the 14, 18-55, 55-200 and a fast prime in whatever focal length you use the most (23, 35 or 56)


For the OP, the style of wedding photography would dictate the choice of midrange zoom or primes. I think the 14/16 and 56 are pretty much certain given the landscape & portrait statements. Obviously the 16-55 & 40-150 zooms are an option if the cost/size/weight aren't an issue. One of the tele zooms is also almost a given since just the 56 and 90 primes is a bit limiting in focal length, even for landscapes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3-4 lenses? That's a tough one.


I shoot weddings, portraits and a bit of everything as private stuff.


35 1.4, as I simply adore this lens for the rendering, size and AF speed on the X-Pro2

56 1.2, as this is my workhorse lens, does roughly 30% of my photos.

90 2.0, as I can't live without it. Technically, the best Fuji lens out there.

16 1.4, as my wide angle.


At the moment, I also own the 23 1.4 and 18-55. I could live without those, to be honest. I'd miss the 18-55 quite a bit, though.


You could certainly get through weddings with that setup. Though, I would probably sneak in a midrange zoom, just to make sure.

Edited by Marc G.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the bumping of old stuff.


My 2 cents with the currently available lens, and with the intention of taking all kinds of photography


You'd need a wide angle, a "normal" length lens, a mid telephoto/portrait lens and a longer telephoto if you had a 4 lens setup.


Personally I use the 18mm F/2, 35mm F1.4 (occasional landscape, street and street portraits) and 60mm F/2.4 (Macro and portraits), and have the XC50-230 for wildlife shots, however if money was no object this is ot the combination I would buy (note I am happy with the results of this combo, and have not tested other lenses).


If money was no object, I would probably pick up the  23 F/1.4 to replace both the 18&35 (although I'd have to re-adjust as I can frame pretty much for the 35mm before I look through the viewfinder), the 56mm F/1.2 for all portrait work and the 100-400 for longer length wildlife and birds. If the 23mm was not wide enough for landscapes you wanted to photo, then I'd probably opt for the 16mm F/1.4 if it was wide enough then one of the 35mm lenses, the 90mm, the 60mm macro or wait for the 120mm macro.


If Fast glass was not important but reach and quickness to adjust to that reach was, zooms may be more appropriate, I plan on going on a safari, when I do it, I'd probably want to take 2 bodies 1 with a short zoom 16-50/18-55/18-135, and a second with the XF100-400


If you are not sure on what focal length you need, I'd think it is probably better to start small with a single normal (23 or 35) lens or a zoom and see what focal lengths you use, before spending money on glass you will not use, or use fujis comparison tool 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep 4 lenses in my bag.  



55-200, and

27 mm pancake.  


The bag is small enough to carry with me on my outdoor walks - the first three give me a (full frame) focal range of 15-300 so I can shoot anything I want.  The 27 is available if decide to do some walking on the city streets.  I also carry the two extension tubes in case I see something I want to get close to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all, 


I am pretty new to the form as I just bought my first Fuji x-E2 (actually still waiting for it to arrive). I am looking at getting 3-4 lenses but am really undecided on what to get? I used my canon gear for years and usually shot a bit of everything.. Landscape, portrait, second shooter at weddings. 


So, if you could only have 3-4 lenses what would you have?  And also what style of photography do you shoot?


Thanks for all of your help


Cheers and Happy shooting!!


Based on what you shoot, I'd recommend,


XF14mm F2.8                  for Street & Landscape (Also look at Rokinon 12mm F2)

XF23mm F1.4                  for Wedding, Street & landscape

XF60 F2.8 or XF56 F1.2  for Portrait & Wedding

XF50-140 F2.8                 for wedding, portrait and landscape


You'll be well pampered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post may be rambling, but I have spent a lot of time and money trying to determine the right '3-4' lenses (for me).


At one time or another, I have owned all of the Fuji offerings except the 27, 50-140 & 100-400.  I may pick up a 27 eventually, but I have no interest or need for the 50-140 or 100-400. If I wanted to carry a bag of bricks around I would have kept my Canon FF 'L' kit. 


I shoot travel, cityscape/ landscape almost exclusively. I shot portraits professionally, but I haven't done so in a few years now.


My goal is to carry as little as possible, while maintaining the ability to capture most any shot I see. I also hate changing lenses on the fly. 


I have distilled my current kit down to three lenses:  16/1.4, 35/1.4 & 18-135.  These three lenses do just about everything I need them to do.


I carry two bodies - X-Pro1 and X-T1 each with a lens mounted.  The 16 and 35 are my 'fast prime, walkabout kit'.  The 16 and 18-135 are my 'landscape kit'. 


The 18-135 is an underrated lens. I have done some pretty extensive A-B comparisons between the 18-135 and the 18-55/ 55-200 combo and can't find much difference between them. The weather-resistance of the 18-135 (and 16) is a feature not to be overlooked for landscape photography. Not to mention that the IS of the 18-135 is at least one stop better than the older pair.  (better 'macro' too!)


Of the lenses that I have owned, the only two I really miss are the 56 and 90. Both of the lenses are awesome.


For landscapes - I highly recommend the 16mm. It offers practically no distortion and is crazy sharp (even at f/1.4!). The 14mm is great and a little wider, but it is two stops slower. That is a BIG difference if you want the lens to double as a walkabout or event lens.  The 10-24 is also great, but IMHO the forced perspective of any lens wider than the 14 make landscapes appear unnatural. (I also trend toward primes.)  You do however, need at least one zoom for landscapes, because you can't always 'zoom with your feet'. 


Portraits and weddings make the 56 or 90 indispensable.  


So -


Three lenses: 16, 56 and 18-135. You shoot: Landscape (16, 18-135) , Portrait (56) and Wedding (16, 56) - done, done and done.     


Four lenses: If you believe that an ultra-wide is a must, you can add the 10-24 or, for a lot less money, the Samyang 12mm f/2 is superb. 


Or, if (like me) ultra-wide is not your thing, I would go with 16, 35, 90 & 18-135.  Those three primes are killer for street/city/event and weddings. The 18-135 will be your 'Swiss Army Knife'. 

Edited by wmiller549
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 1.4 + 23 1.4 + 56 1.2 for sure. I'd have a lot of trouble deciding on a fourth.


Those are for sure my bread and butter focal lengths. I'd be completely comfortable shooting jobs with that kit (portrait/event/wedding work mostly) and that pretty much entirely meets my needs for personal shooting, too.


The fourth lens I'm not so sure about, as I'd have trouble choosing one oddball/special purpose lens. I'd love an ultra wide, but I'd probably end up choosing something long for compression and the bit of wildlife or sports I do the odd time. For practicality's sake I'd probably choose the 50-140, assuming I can use the 1.4x extender with it.


I'm currently using the 18mm in place of the 16. I'm hoping to pick up the 16 in the next couple months. 

Edited by Phil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just purchased the 50-140 today... I'm not sure I'll keep it yet. I need to try it out on the street at night. It's a bit heavy but feels so well made.


Really like the 18-135 but it is 2 stops slower on the tele end and I have too often run out of light in the evening/night with it.


I tried the 90 today for the first time. Feels great on the camera and so sharp. I loved it immediately but I'm doubtful of its practicality so I went with the 50-140 because of the OIS and only 1 stop difference. The 50-140 seems like it will be better at night on the street. Also, primes on the short end require much less movement to frame. Really gotta move the feet a lot with the 90 and that is not always possible.


The 16, 23 and 56 are indispensable. No way I could part with the 10-24 either. So 4 lenses is just too few for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all, 


I am pretty new to the form as I just bought my first Fuji x-E2 (actually still waiting for it to arrive). I am looking at getting 3-4 lenses but am really undecided on what to get? I used my canon gear for years and usually shot a bit of everything.. Landscape, portrait, second shooter at weddings. 


So, if you could only have 3-4 lenses what would you have?  And also what style of photography do you shoot?


Thanks for all of your help


Cheers and Happy shooting!!


Congratulations on your choice - you'll love it, I'm sure. For a long time I used just 3 Fuji lenses; the 18mm f2, 35mm f1.4 and 55-200mm zoom. Although I have since invested in many of the other lenses in the family, these are probably still my basic favourite 3. I do mostly landscape and building photography.


BTW you might wonder why the 18mm rather than the 14mm, 16mm or 10-24. It's because the 18mm is a perfect balance of size and quality. The other wide-angle lenses are much bigger and heavier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. 16-55

2. 50-140

3. 23 1.4

4. 56 1.4


I could shoot most of what I want with that.  This is exactly my event shooting lenses too.  The zooms for when the light is good, the primes for when the light is bad/low.


For all primes:

1. 14 or 16 (I'd want something wide, 16 at least, just based on its repuation, 14 maybe better though)

2. 23 (35mm FF equiv is my go to focal length, a very versitle lens, even in low light)

3. 56 (great for many things, great in low light too)

4. 90 (good for times when things are too far away, also can be used as a pseudo macro lens)


Just zooms:

1. 10-24 (widest you can go with Fuji so far, also good for video because of the OIS)

2. 16-55 (I'll sacrifice OIS for speed any day of the week)

3. 50-140 (you kinda need a 70-200 2.8 equiv)

4. 100-400 (this lens is so fun to use, good for wildlife and the occasional sports shoot).


There's very little you couldn't shoot with that setup.

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.

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.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Hi Last week during a reportage, I shot bursts from about 5 fts with one of my two X-T5s, for a total of about 100 photographs. I had mounted a Fujinon XF8mm. Everything seemed to proceed regularly without any sign of problems. When looking at the sequences in the car I realized that many photos were completely black, that is, as if I had taken with the cap in front, alternating with some perfect ones and others completely white without any detail. Back in the studio I loaded them onto the Mac and noticed that of a sequence of around 100 photographs, 49 were completely flawed, that is, almost all of them were completely BLACK and some were completely WHITE. The problem was present both on the photo of the Slot 1 card (RAF) and on the Slot 2 card (JPG) in unison, so much so that I discarded the hypothesis that it could be a problem with the memory card. So, to recap: the errors on the 49 offending photos are exactly the same, for both cards in RAF and JPG. After turning the machine off and on again, it started working perfectly again, so much so that in the following days I carried out other jobs, even with gusts, without any problem. Obviously I am waiting for a response from the support to which I sent the offending sequences. I would add that if I analyze the EXIFs of the BLACK or WHITE photos, the values and data that appear are completely normal, that is, they report exactly the same information as the photos that came out well, as if nothing had happened. 1) Before each job, I always format the cards in the machine, with the specific function that can be called up from the menu and quick keys of the XT5 2) The XT5 has Firmware version 2.03 3) The Fujinon XF-8mm lens Firmware 1.00 The problem has manifested itself, for now, only once, intermittently, that is, some faulty photos alternated with perfect ones. In the following days, on the advice of the assistance center, I put on the intervalometer and shot the camera until the card was full for a total of 1600 shots. No problems, everything is fine. What do you think about it? Has anyone had this problem?

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • In manual, exposure compensation is meaningless and the dial doesn't do anything. The exposure compensation display on the rear screen and in the EVF however changes its purpose slightly, and effectively becomes an old fashioned light meter / exposure meter. As you move the camera, it changes dynamically showing you how over/under exposed you are. It is not doing anything active - not changing a setting - simply passively showing you the result of your manual settings of F/SS/ISO you have set on the resultant exposure. You do not want to disable this. Manually change F/SS/ISO until the exposure comp scale reads 0, and you will have a perfectly manually exposed picture. You can, of course, use it to accurately over/under expose by thirds of a stop, depending on your artistic intent.
    • Not as such. But depending on the precise problem you are suffering from, there may be workaround. In normal shooting operation, pressing the front command dial button cycles between three functions - which you can change. If you are inadvertently switching between say aperture / exposure comp / and ISO - which I think are the default settings - you can simply set the second and third functions to 'none'... Use 'Spanner'->'Command Dial Setting'->'2'->'none', and 'Spanner'->'Command Dial Setting'->'3'->'none' Now the front command dial does nothing in normal shooting operation.
    • Dynamic range settings of more than 100% cause the 'gain', i.e. ISO, to be lowered locally in bright areas to reduce/prevent clipping and thereby 'protecting your highlights'. SO it does affect RAW. Most other settings only affect RAW processing i.e. the JPEG. Grain affect does not affect the RAW image data, but it stored in the RAW metadata. Beware - it is difficult (arguably impossible) to 'look at a RAW file'. When you try to look at a RAW file, you are either looking at an embedded JPEG thumbnail preview, or the software that you are looking at the RAW file with is processing the RAW file on demand to generate a JPEG that it is displaying on the screen. Depending on the software, and/or its settings, it may be looking at the embedded metadata and taking the original camera settings, i.e. grain affect, into account.
  • Create New...