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

[dneu]

What do you think about a kit consisting of

 

Zeiss Touit 12mm F2.8     (18mm equiv.)

Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8     (24-70mm equiv.)

Fujifilm 23mm F1.4          (35mm equiv)

Fujifilm 90mm F2.0          (135mm equiv.)

Fujifilm MCEX-16             (macro ext.)

 

when I mostly shoot landscape, architecture and events and sometimes portraiture, macro and sports?

Would you change something or is it a convenient kit?

[jlmphotos]

!. 18-55

 

2. 16mm 1.4

 

3.  35 1.4

 

Without hesitation.

[mdm]

If Fuji ever creates 33f1 it makes obsolete my 18-55, 23f2, 35f2 and 60... I'll keep 14, 33f1, 55-200 and 27 for pocket setup.

[richard371]

I went with the 18-55, 23/2, and 35/2.  I like my kit to be light, fast AF etc.  I may replace the 35 with the 50/2 when it comes out. 

[Warwick]

I think a big part of the answer comes down to the question 'what kind of photographer am I?'. And I think I'm coming to the conclusion that my 'thing' is people in their environment. Plus I'm a skateboarder and a dog-owner and I like to take action shots of both. So I'm coming down to fisheye for skating, and 18, 23 and 35f2 for environmental portraits. I currently own a 56f1.4 but I'm selling it to buy the new 23. I don't use the 56 much, and the 35 can do most of what it can do, plus you can get closer to your subject, which I prefer.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[delmundo]

My current setup is:

X-E2s 14mm 2.8 and Nikon 100mm 2.8

X100T and TCL

[Hermelin]

18-55 f/2.8- 4 (travel lens & video recording)

35 f/2 (low light & portrait)

90 f/2 (sports/action & portrait)

Edited October 11, 2016 by Hermelin

[Nero]

I've answered this before, but I think all of us have evolving needs in equipment as our experience and style change over time, so I'll answer it again.

 

Currently, almost all of my work is done with the 23mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4. I also own the 16mm for wide angle. I would say that 90% of my needs are covered by these lenses, but for the remaining 10% of situations, I would add the 55-200mm as a fourth lens. 

 

If I'm traveling, I sometimes switch out the 16mm for the 10-24mm.

[Chayelle]

1/   18 f/2 mostly for closeup, macro

2/   60 f/2.4   for tele or landscape

3/   80 f/2.8 macro   when it is released with the 1.4 TC

This will depend on the weight. The pictures I have seen of it make it as large as the 90mm,

so we will see...

4/   35 f/2   Have considered this, but with my first two, not sure I really need it.  We will see...   

[chada398]

Anyone heard anything about 18mm f2 getting wr update?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gareth_E]

I have only 3 lenses, and that is all I plan on having for the time being:

 

1.)  18-55

2.)  35mm f1.4

3.)  90mm f2

 

I have a Raynox 250 I can quickly clip onto the front of the 90mm to make it an instant true 1:1 macro.  I did have the 56mm 1.2, but sold it to get the 90mm. As fantastic a lens as the 56mm is, I never really liked the quality of the Bokeh. Yes there's lots of it, but I didn't really care for the 'soap bubble' effect. I much prefer how both the 35mm 1.4 and the 90mm render out of focus areas. So much smoother, and more like what i'm used to coming from DSLR.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Gareth_E

[JackParrish]

I shoot professionally with only 5 lenses. I have access to the 70-200 equivalent, but rarely need it. 

 

Here is the list of the lenses I use with the system for all my commercial work. And I'll put them in the order I would buy them if I didn't just replace them all at once. You can have as many lenses as you like, but you don't NEED any more than these for the vast majority of work you can do. The obvious exceptions are huge zooms for sports or wildlife, and a macro lens if you're specializing in macro-based photography. 

The 16mm isn't macro, but it actually focuses well enough, with such low distortion, that I don't feel any need to buy a macro tube or macro lens as a matter of necessity. They would be better options for pure macro shooting, but I can get the detail shots I need from the 16mm or the 90mm if used properly. 

 

And I know we're talking about what is "good enough", but let's not miss that this is also a killer bag. Maybe even earning the "legendary" title when we look back on it 20 years from now. 

 

1. 23mm 1.4

2. 56mm

3. 16mm

4. 90mm

5. 35mm 2.0

[JDFlood]

I have all the primes. If dark I take the 16mm, 23mm 56mm, and maybe the 90mm; I live in the Pacific NW. If it is bright or need to go light the 14mm, 27mm, 35 f2, and 60mm. I never shoot zooms.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Neil_42]

8 mm Samyang fisheye

10-24 mm

18-135 mm

100-400 mm with 1.4 teleconverter.

 

Love all four of them for portraits, photojournalism, event coverage, scenics, birds, wildlife, architecture, etc.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Neil_42

[milaber22]

What I have ended up with

16mm

35mm f1. 4

50-140 f2. 8

+ samyang 8mm f 2.8 fish eye

 

Στάλθηκε από το ASUS_Z00AD μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Pierre]

My actual kit :

Samyang 12 f2

16-55 f2.8

50-140 f2.8

 

My future second kit :

16 f1.4

35 f1.4

90 f2

[tractorboyx]

I only carry 3 lens.

 

10-24mm f/4

23mm f/1.4

56mm f/1.2

 

these would allow you to take anything from landscape, street, and portraits.

 

if I added 1 more it would be the 55-200 or change the 10-24 for the 16mm f/1.4.

[W Neder]

Any curated set of lenses will be best fit with certain purposes. Shooting weddings is different than shooting sports, underwater, or landscapes for a digital photography magazine. 

 

For me, if you're shooting people, events, weddings, emerging news, or etc, I like a bag full of primes that have really unique qualities. You don't have to make the tradeoffs against image quality if you don't want to shooting these themes, outside of having crazy zoom lenses for contingencies. And you will want one, from time to time, but for 95% of what you need this bag will be more than sufficient. But if you're a birding photographer, this bag will be 80% worthless. 

 

For me, for the Fuji line:

 

1. 16mm 1.4

2. 23mm 1.4

3. 56mm 1.2

4. 90mm 2.0

 

And if you have a fifth: 

 

5. 35mm f2.0. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by W Neder

[Henry0125]

My choice is:

Landscape: 10-24

Portrait: 56

Body-cap: 35

[Sluw]

14 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 90 f/2.0

[JRphoto]

1) 16mm f/1.4

2) 27mm f/2.8

3) 35mm f/1.4

4) 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6

[Antonius]

16, 23, 35 & 58 mm.  All primes.  I moved away after 30yrs of slow costly Nikkor zooms.

[renes]

16/1.8

23/1.8 

50/1.8

 

BTW, 23/2 is actually 21mm what dissapointed me.

[joshhhab]

10-24

35/1.4

56/1.2

 

Want to buy 50-140 and maybe something around 85mm but I want it faster or with OIS which lacks in XF90

[Hermelin]

Well I finally got what I wanted 18-55, 35 f/2 and 90 f/2.

But now I'm thinking of selling the 18-55 and get the 10-24 instead since I enjoy using the 35 f/2 so much as a everyday lens (instead of the 18-55).