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

[blessingx]

I'm struggling with similar. 

 

35mm/f2  As a light walk around as fast AF and WR (if you give that any weight).

56mm/f1.2 For portrait. Probably love the portrait shots of the 90mm ever so slightly more, but you do have to stand about two counties away from your subject. Likely great at weddings though and could be considered a pseudo semi-telephoto. 

10-24mm/f4 For those interior shots. 16mm/1.4 a better lens, but... those 6mm.

Rumored 23mm/f2. As a wider light walk around. Hope whoever designed the 35mm/f2 takes a look at all the legacy lenses.  

[TCMercury]

I only have three: 35 f/2, 16 f/1.4 and 55-200. I do a lot of street shooting and a fair amount of landscape/architecture, but rarely need telephoto, so I went a bit cheaper on the latter and put my money into the wide end instead. I did have the 90 f/2 for a while, but as I don't do much portraits and tend to use available light the lack of OIS really grated, and it felt a bit specialised for what I was using it for.

[Kaisui]

I actually own the 35 f1.4 and the 60 f2.4 macro, i love everything about the 35, even if i owned more lenses i know this would be the most used anyway, i would like to get the 18 f2 for general purpose and the rokinon 10 f2.8 for landscape and events, i'm not going to talk about any zooms because they make no sense to me with my x-pro1, maybe i would add a rokinon fisheye to have some fun but is not essential, with my fuji i shoot mainly portraits of my friends or documenting my life, blog, travels and that kind of stuff, for paid works i'm using my old but trusty Nikon kit, i almost forget to mention that if i had the chance/money i would change the 60 for the 56 because i'm using the 60 for portraits instead of macro, so in few words i would like to own Rokinon 10 f2.8 - XF 18 f2 - XF 35 f1.4 - XF 56 1.2 but that's just me.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Kaisui

[bhu]

I reserve the right to change my mind but right now...

 

14

18-135

27

56

[dneu]

If you want three lenses, in my opinion there are 3 good ways to go:

• 16 mm F1.4
• 35 mm F2.0
• 90 mm F2.0

The first one is an all WR prime-lens kit to achieve the best image quality.

• 14 mm F2.8
• 23 mm F1.4
• 56 mm F1.2

This one I would recommend if you'd like to go wider and prefer fast primes.

• 10-24 mm F4.0
• 16-55 mm F2.8 (or 35 mm F2.0)
• 50-140 mm F2.8

This kit covers nearly all important focal lenghs with amazing zoom lenses.

[marcosv]

With Canon, I had a five lens setup: 17-40L, 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8L II, 35L, and 85L II.  It gave me the usual focal range and shallow DOF primes.  A 100L macro and 100-400L 2 would come after that.  The Canon setup is heavy enough for me that I would usually leave the 70-200 at home unless I know I needed it.  I would next leave the 17-40L or 35L.

 

With Fuji, I usually go 10-24, 23, 56, and either 90 or 50-140 with a X-T1 and X-E2.

 

It seems when I can bring two bodies with two mounted lens, the 18-55 stays home.

 

I might rent a 18-135 again to see if I can warm up to it.  The 100-400 and 1.4x TC are my next purchases unless the X-T2 comes out first.  I figure anything longer than that the 100-400 and I'll be borrowing my friend's Canon 600L and the gimbal mount to go with it.

[bonnyw]

Favorite lenses so far:  10-24 for wide, 56 for portrait with its lovely bokeh, 18-135 (a terrific all-around travel lens when you only want to carry one), and I love the new 100-400mm - great reach and crispness due to the image stabilization in lens.  I am looking forward to seeing the IQ from the new macro yet to be released, and have heard wonderful things about the 90mm. I shoot mostly travel/landscape/nature; some architecture, for which the 10-24 works well. 

[Kalle]

I prefer primes. Combinations 14 + 35 + 90 or 23 + 56 are the classic combinations. 

[PeterC]

My four would be:

10-24mm

27mm

35mm

55-200mm

[uckdie]

You know that there are usually differences between as-planned and as-is. You should't be to upset if you end up with more lenses...

 

The 16-23-56-90 combination is a fast high-end lens setup. The 14-27-60 combination is an excellent low cost and weight combination. The 55-200mm is lovely and produces a lot of keepers (much more than the 100-400mm, which still is a must-have for wildlife). A good copy of the 16-55mm f2.8 will open the question, if you should keep the primes. I don't care for the 10-24mm or the 50-140mm. But I would like to add the Samyang 8mm f2.8 and the Touit 12mm which are both excellent.

 

So if you want to limit yourself to 3-4 lenses my suggestion is to add "per year" and you are set ;-)

 

Regards, Dieter

[bjorke]

JUST TWO: 18mm + 35mm, done.

 

Pocketable and quick.

 

If you need WR swap the 18mm with the (much much larger) 16mm and get the f/2 35mm.

 

after than the kit lens and a tele for hockey games

[juankis]

Depens if you like zooms or primes.

 

Zooms:  16-55, 50-140

 

Primes: 16mm, 35mm, 56mm

Edited April 7, 2016 by juankis

[avontime]

My kit 4 lenses:

1) XF 23mm f/1.4

2) XF 56mm f/1.2

3  XF 16-55mm f/2.8

4) XF 50-140mm f/2.8

 

or 

 

2 lenses:

1) XF 23mm f/1.4

2) XF 50-140 f/2.8

[Wing0949]

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!!

Really depends on the shooter.

 

I'd say for an all-rounder that basically cover you very well in any situation, and if you had the X-T1 (or X-T2), just need the 3 zoom: 10-24mm f/4, 16-55mm F/2.8 & 50-140mm f/2.8.. but, i'd revise the ultra-wide zoom to whatever WR version they may have.. perhaps a f/2.8 version in the future?.. Kind of think they need one to get the full WR coverage from lens to the camera body at some point.

 

Again if all-rounder, and if you had an X-Pro2 (or similar rangefinder style camera), I personally prefer to stay with primes. One scenario would be: 18mm f/2 for you wide end, 23mm f1.4 or 23mm f2 (which should be release this year) for wider mid-range and 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2 for longer mid-range. I feel the rangefinder style is best suited to wide to mid tele range of lenses only for the fact you can take advantage of both the optical viewfinder and electronic viewfinder if you're using an X-Pro. The style lends itself better to using primes and keeping within those ranges. BUT, if you enjoy and will pretty much only use the EVF most, if not all, the time, then you can use the same setup as the X-T1 (X-T2) mentioned above just as well.. though, ergonomically, the X-T bodies are better for zooms and larger lenses.

 

Here's a nice article from FujivsFuji which may also help.

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/recommended-kits/

[vkalia]

With Canon, my general-photography travel kit used to have 3 lenses, all paired on a FF camera:

- 17-40/4

- 24-105/4 IS

- 70-200/4 IS

 

I have still retained my Canon gear and use Fuji as my travel kit.      Were i replacing my gear, I would have probably settled for comparable fast zooms from Fuji instead.  

 

As it turns out, I have settled on the following 3 lenses:  16/1.4, 35/1.4 &  23/1.4

 

Quite honestly, i think the 50mm (in 35mm terms) is one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography.     It isnt wide enough to provide a backdrop to street shots, isnt close enough to be a good close-up lens:  it's just a weak compromise that is does neither properly.  

 

Now a 35mm equiv, OTOH... that, to me, is the first prime people should buy (I have deliberately gone with lenses outside my comfort zone for other reasons).     The 27mm pancake (40mm equiv) would be a good alternative for someone looking for something lighter/smaller instead.

 

With the "main lens" sorted, a wide angle is next - super-versatile and useful in oh-so-many-places.  The 24mm equiv (16/1.4) is a natural option for someone going the prime route:  the perfect wide-angle prime, IMO.      For someone who does a lot of landscape, interiors, street/crowded markets, etc., the 10-24/4 could be an alternative here as well.

 

For the third lens, there are a bunch of options.   A short tele would probably be the most useful, or a portrait lens - depending on what one shoots. I went with a 50mm equiv as a way to force myself to play with a lens i am not comfortable with, but i'd much rather have preferred the 55-140 zoom.  

 

For my shooting, an 85mm equiv is useless (I used to own one for Canon and sold it after a few years, having taken <10 shots with it), but apparently a lot of people swear by that as their 3rd lens in a prime-only kit.

Edited April 8, 2016 by vkalia

[uckdie]

 

Quite honestly, i think the 50mm (in 35mm terms) is one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography.     It isnt wide enough to provide a backdrop to street shots, isnt close enough to be a good close-up lens:  it's just a weak compromise that is does neither properly.  

 

Now a 35mm, OTOH... that, to me, is the first prime people should buy (I have deliberately gone with lenses outside my comfort zone for other reasons).     The 27mm pancake would be a good alternative for someone looking for something lighter/smaller instead.

 

This is exactly why I did choose the 27mm. The 35mm ist excellent, as is the Touit 32mm, but I don't know when to use it (except for the rare in studio situations).

[Tikcus]

This is exactly why I did choose the 27mm. The 35mm ist excellent, as is the Touit 32mm, but I don't know when to use it (except for the rare in studio situations).

 

The 35mm is the only lens I could not live without.

For me it is the perfect lens for low light/Street portraits with or without a Shallow DOF, and I have used it in a studio for portrait shoots.

 

For street I have never really had an issue zooming out with my feet if it was needed for framing, however for cityscapes (especially on a recent visit to New York) , I find the 18mm a better focal length.

 

I do not own the 23mm but it is also not a lens I intend to get, I guess I am just happy using "one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography" as my go to lens

 

I'm also a believer in finding a way to get your shots with the equipment you have

[schralp]

I'm quite happy with the 14, 35 f/1.4, 56 and the 18-55 zoom. When I travel I carry the 18-55 with whichever prime makes more sense for what I plan to shoot; usually, that's the 35. As much as I like the 56, I really only pull it out for portraits; just seems big and heavy on the X-T1. Have never tried the "perfect" 90 but as nice as it is, I think I wouldn't use that focal length much. I use my DSLR for the long stuff; like others, I find that balances (and performs) better.

 

Like others have mentioned, for whatever reason, I just like the rather imperfect 35 f/1.4 and the way it renders (and feels)...

[vkalia]

This is exactly why I did choose the 27mm. The 35mm ist excellent, as is the Touit 32mm, but I don't know when to use it (except for the rare in studio situations).

 

 

Ironically, that is why I have NOT gotten a 35mm-equivalent yet - to force myself out of my comfort zone.    I did get a 16/1.4 and the 35/1.4, and i found myself using the 16 more (for whatever reason, i "see" better with a wider angle lens):  the 35 hardly got any use.

 

I am going to spend all of next week in Kuala Lumpur, and am gonna shoot only with the 35/1.5 to see if I can indeed teach my eye to adjust to this focal length.

 

And a part of me is debating on whether to get the 23/1.4 or the 27/2 - lighter and smaller is nice (it is depressing how heavy my Fuji bag has gotten already!).

[snappp]

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!!

 

Hi everyone,

 

I'm using the XF 23mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 on my X-T1 on various situations since 1.5 year now and I'm very happy with those lenses.

I'm planning to get wider with the XF 16mm f/1.4 later this year for the situations where the 23 is not wide enough and where I can move farther from my subject

If Fuji has proposed a fast (lets say 2.8) 10mm prime lens, I would buy that one as a fourth lens.

 

I have to say I hate mounting zoom lenses on my fuji system. I prefer primes, they're much lighter.

For zooms I (still?) rely on my reflex camera.

 

Hope this helps...

[deva]

 

 

Quite honestly, i think the 50mm (in 35mm terms) is one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography.     It isnt wide enough to provide a backdrop to street shots, isnt close enough to be a good close-up lens:  it's just a weak compromise that is does neither properly. 

 

 

And yet there is something simple and beautiful about that focal length. 

[BB70Chevelle]

My planned four lens kit will be,

 

10-24

35 F2

56 F1.2

100-400.

[jlmphotos]

Let's see:  In order of usage based on my style which is places and things as a Travel/stock shooter.  I abhor shooting people now after almost 30+ years as a wedding/event shooter.  Here goes, in Order:

 

1.  18-55 (Never, ever leave home without it)

2.  16mm 1.4 (Never leave home without it)

3.  35mm 1.4 (will leave at home on occasion but will only part with it upon my death if St. Peter won't allow it into Heaven.)

4.  55-200  (Ultra, ultra sharp)  light weight compared to th 50-140.  Compact, VR, did I mention Shaaaaarp?  Well built.  

 

Depends on where I'm going, and what I "plan" on photographing will determine what goes.  Also, if I'm traveling via auto, then I can pack more.  As a matter of fact, in a few weeks I'm heading out for a couple of weeks of intense stock shooting and I'll be taking my entire backpack with ALL my gear and flashes, BUT, I will pull out ONLY what I think what I'll need that morning, mid-day, or afternoon walk-around, put it into whichever of the two day-bags I decide to carry, and just take that with me; the rest remains in the room.

 

If I were traveling via boat or airplane which I won't be on this trip, we'd be having a different conversation.  

[Tommyboy]

I recently acquired an XE-2 with the 18-55, an admirable lens. I have since purchased four lenses:

 

16mm f/1.4 (24 equivalent)

23mm f/1.4 (35 equivalent)

56mm f/1.2 (85 equivalent)

90mm f/2.0 (135 equivalent)

 

They all fit in one small bag (a Tenba P211) and are a joy to use. I started with the 14mm, but swapped it for the 16's IQ. If I had to pare it down to three, the toss up would be between the teles, I think. I haven't really shot with the 16 yet, just got it, but the other three are really, really impressive. I had a 35mm f/1.4 in the film days, and I still regret selling it. I'm glad to have one in the Fuji system. It's the perfect, "normal" lens.

[Tommyboy]

Quite honestly, i think the 50mm (in 35mm terms) is one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography.     It isnt wide enough to provide a backdrop to street shots, isnt close enough to be a good close-up lens:  it's just a weak compromise that is does neither properly.

I couldn't agree more. It's popularity, historically, has been related to price. It was the kit lens of generations. I have a Canon 50mm f/1.4. I do use it from time to time, but I prefer a 35, a 28, and even a 24.

 

The beautiful little 35mm Fuji would be much more appealing to me if it were a 23mm.

 

Having said all that, to each his own. If you dig it, shoot it, and more power to you.