Jump to content

New X-T1 Buyer. Needs Lens Recommendations


Jaypoc
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm a Canon shooter, but I'm looking to invest in a smaller, "every-day" camera. I've picked the X-T1 and would like some recommendations on lenses from people who have used them. I'm specifically looking for quality and sharpness and versatility. I'm curious if anybody would recommend other lenses over the one's I've picked:

 

Primes:

  • XF 14mm f/2.8 R (for landscapes, real estate interiors)
  • XF 27mm f/2.8 (love the small size, For general walk-around, street photography)
  • XF 56mm f/1.2 R (for portraits and street photography)

Zooms:

  • XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS (comfort zone, low price, small footprint. Probably my go-to lens everyday lens)
  • XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR (I love my long zooms for festivals, concerts, portraits, etc..). Need to have one in my kit.

I currently shoot with a 5D Mark III with a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-300 f/4-5.6. I love my Canon gear, but it's too big and heavy to use for casual/daily use. I currently shoot mostly portraits and events (conventions, festivals and retail events) but am starting to get into real estate as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would at least consider the 55-200mm over the 50-140mm. Not that there is anything wrong with the 50-140. By most tests, it will outperform the 55-200 and it's WR. However, I went with the 55-200 because I found that when I wanted a telephoto, 140 wasn't enough reach for some things. The image quality on the 55-200 is fantastic, it's razor sharp, and the bokeh is quite good. It's also only $499 whenever the rebates are in effect. That's a substantial savings for little or no drop in overall image quality that could be invested in another lens. If 140 is enough at the long end and the cost isn't a deterrent, then by all means, go for the 50-140 though.

 

The 18-55 is dead-on for your description. Go for it.

 

For primes, I don't own the 56mm because I don't shoot enough portraits to justify the cost.... at least not yet! I do own the 27mm and have essentially put it on an X-E1 permanently as a street camera. Can't go wrong with it for the size and price for that purpose. On the wide end, the 14mm is a great lens, but I have the 10-24mm and the 16mm. Part of the reason for that overlap is that I really like to shoot landscapes. If I'm going somewhere with little idea of what to expect, I use the 10-24. If I have some idea of what to expect in a location, I typically go with the 16mm. The zoom is excellent image quality, but it can get a little soft in the corners. The 16mm is Fuji's best image quality in my opinion. Many times I will take one "scouting" pass through a location with the zoom and then a second with the 16mm, but for travel one of my favorite kits is the 10-24, 35 f/1.4, and 55-200. I won't hesitate to make large prints from either wide lens, but the difference is clear in a side by side comparison. 

 

Lastly, I can't fail to mention either the 23 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4. Ideally, I think these are complementary lenses and I love owning both, but these lenses just have a magical quality to the images you get from them. These are some of the real gems of the Fuji lineup and I would not want to walk away without at least one of them. 

Edited by Nero
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive tested and used ALL the Fuji X lenses,   you left out Fujis BEST lens, their 16mm

 

 

 

18-55 is cheap and great, yes

 

27mm pancake, a cheap awesome must have

 

 

18-135 is incredible for a cheap price used like new on Fleabay.

 

 

i have 13 Fuji X lenses, i picked the best :)

 

 

you ALSO left out their new awesome and CHEAP priced 35mm F2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

So I was initially looking at the 16mm f/1.4 but after reading the following review and seeing their sample images, I switched to the 14 as it looked sharper over all in their sample images. (http://www.fujivsfuji.com/wide-angle-primes-14mm-f2pt8-vs-16mm-f1pt4-vs-18mm-f2/ ) Is it really believed that the 16 is sharper. I would love the extra stops and the weather sealing, but believing the 14 was that much sharper, I put it on my list.

 

I also went back and forth between the 27 f/2.8 and the 35 f/1.4, but the 27 is the first Fuji Lens I had my eye on (because of the small size). I would love some arguments for/against one or the other if anyone sees any major reason to pick one over the other. (I'd love both, but it's already getting expensive).

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Nero, I think I would consider the new 100-400 over the 55-200 if I really needed that kind of reach. Then again, it costs almost double the camera body... I shoot usually shoot around 200mm on my full frame, so I don't know that I'll need much more reach than that from the X-T1.... plus, would it be viable to get an X to EF adapter to use my 70-300 on the XT-1 if I really had a situation that called for it? (Then again, I would lose IS and autofocus, wouldn't I?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider cutting out some overlap:

 

If you don't need the shallow dof for portraits, you'll do just fine using only the 50-140. As for tight headshots, the zoom will give you all the shallow dof you need. I have both the 56 (apd version) and the 50-140. The 50-140 is very versatile and just as sharp, so unless carry weight is an everyday concern, you'll do just fine getting only the zoom. The zoom also focusses like a dream and the OIS is magnificent.

 

I have the 16mm too, but unless you need the stops of light like I do, the 14mm will be just fine. The 16mm is on the large end already as a walkaround lens. That being said, if you don't need the light gathering capabilities, and for street photography, consider not getting the 18-55 at all, or the 14mm. Just get the 10-24mm as wide angle and walkaround lens. For street, 24mm is great and you'll want to shoot at f5.6 or f8 anyway.

 

So for your description, I'd go with this:

50-140 f2.8, plus the option to add a teleconverter later on if you need more reach.

10-24 f4

Add in one small prime, like the 35 f2 or 35 f1.4 for evening or general lightweight use and it's a great kit. Or wait for the 23 f2 that is to come soon.

Edited by Tom H.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

So I was initially looking at the 16mm f/1.4 but after reading the following review and seeing their sample images, I switched to the 14 as it looked sharper over all

 

 

Dont take this the wrong way, but it is a very pedestrian premise to ONLY look at the sharpness or resolution of a lens :mellow:

 

 

its like a DRUNK who only looks at alcohol content by % when considering a wine purchase.  

 

 

however that aside, the 16mm is a higher resolving lens than the 14mm

 

has better color saturation, better microcontrast, better overall rendition.

Edited by fujiXphotog
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] the 27 is the first Fuji Lens I had my eye on (because of the small size). I would love some arguments for/against one or the other if anyone sees any major reason to pick one over the other. (I'd love both, but it's already getting expensive).

 

If IQ is a concern of yours, I would take the 35 F1.4 over the 27, if you just want something small to always have with you, the 27 will fit the bill much better.

Like Tom said, I would maybe keep an eye on the rumored 23 F2, we currently don't know how small it is going to be, but it's on the buy list of a lot of forum members already, me included. Guesstimate place it somewhere between the 18 with aperture ring toward a larger 27 without the aperture ring.

 

[...]Then again, I would lose IS and autofocus, wouldn't I?

 

Yes pretty much, loosing IS for long range zoom is rather inconvenient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

plus, would it be viable to get an X to EF adapter to use my 70-300 on the XT-1 if I really had a situation that called for it? (Then again, I would lose IS and autofocus, wouldn't I?)

IS, autofocus, and aperture control. There are dumb adapters with a built in aperture, but that new aperture is in the wrong place, of course, and will cause vignetting. Also, it's not automatic, so you'll have to open it manually to focus, close it to take the image... uargh.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again everyone!

 

Dont take this the wrong way, but it is a very pedestrian premise to ONLY look at the sharpness or resolution of a lens :mellow:

its like a DRUNK who only looks at alcohol content by % when considering a wine purchase.  

 

Perhaps I was a bit drunk :) I looked up a bunch more reviews, specifically comparisons between them, and the 16 does actually look pretty good. I like the closer focusing distance, weather sealing and extra stop of light, and I am used to shooting at 24mm/FF so I have to decide if I really want to shoot a bit wider (I may) It looks like I really can't go wrong with either. I'll probably try to get to B&H and try them both. 

 

If you don't need the shallow dof for portraits, you'll do just fine using only the 50-140. As for tight headshots, the zoom will give you all the shallow dof you need. I have both the 56 (apd version) and the 50-140. The 50-140 is very versatile and just as sharp, so unless carry weight is an everyday concern, you'll do just fine getting only the zoom. The zoom also focusses like a dream and the OIS is magnificent.

 

That's kind of why I want it. The 85 1.2 would have been my next Canon lens, if I weren't setting up a fuji kit. For headshots, I'd be using my canon kit anyways as it'll travel with my lighting and has higher resolution (and if I decide I like Fuji better and sell off my Canon gear, I can always pick up the rest of Fuji's lenses. They're a lot cheaper than Canon's L lenses.). I do want this for general carry, so the 50-140 would probably stay home except for cases when I know I'll need it. Though I might hold off until I've had a chance to use the 50-140 and see if 2.8 is enough for me. (I've also been eyeing the 70-200 f/2.8 for the Canon)

 

IS, autofocus, and aperture control. There are dumb adapters with a built in aperture, but that new aperture is in the wrong place, of course, and will cause vignetting. Also, it's not automatic, so you'll have to open it manually to focus, close it to take the image... uargh.

 

Ok, Adapters are out :) Maybe I'll pick up a cheap one (eventually) to play around , but it doesn't sound like they're too practical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 14 is a wonderful lens.  I love mine.  The 16 is much bigger and heavier then the 14.  If I were you I'd try and rent them both.  I liked the 16 for it's more common (35mm equiv) focal length, but wound up getting the 14 because the price just couldn't be beat.  I love the results I get with it on my XT-1.  The 16 is also incredible fast to focus, and ridiculously sharp.  I shoot mainly street and reportage type stuff, so I don't much need that corner to corner.  All that being said, I have not been dissatisfied with the results from my 14 at all.

 

I am wondering why you don't want to pair the 16-55 with the 50-140.  They are the natural pair in my opinion, but I understand the 18-55 is such a good lens at the price.  I eventually want to replace my two zooms with the 16-55 and the 50-140 though.  The 50-140 does work with the 1.4 tele and will work with the 2x as well, so I think that's the best choice, in my opinion.

 

My 35 ƒ1.4 lives on my Pro1.  I've never taken it off that camera.  It's my most used lens, until the 23 ƒ2 comes out at least...

Edited by CRAusmus
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were you I'd try and rent them both...

 

...I am wondering why you don't want to pair the 16-55 with the 50-140. They are the natural pair in my opinion...

 

I am going to see if any of the stores near me have them in stock to try them out. Im also about an hour from B&H and they have units out you can test.

 

As for the 16-55, its bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 18-55. I prefer something smaller as long as there's no major sacrifice in IQ and most reviews i read imply the smaller lens is quite good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 14 is a wonderful lens.  I love mine.  The 16 is much bigger and heavier then the 14.  If I were you I'd try and rent them both.  I liked the 16 for it's more common (35mm equiv) focal length, but wound up getting the 14 because the price just couldn't be beat.  I love the results I get with it on my XT-1.  The 16 is also incredible fast to focus, and ridiculously sharp.  I shoot mainly street and reportage type stuff, so I don't much need that corner to corner.  All that being said, I have not been dissatisfied with the results from my 14 at all.

 

I am wondering why you don't want to pair the 16-55 with the 50-140.  They are the natural pair in my opinion, but I understand the 18-55 is such a good lens at the price.  I eventually want to replace my two zooms with the 16-55 and the 50-140 though.  The 50-140 does work with the 1.4 tele and will work with the 2x as well, so I think that's the best choice, in my opinion.

 

My 35 ƒ1.4 lives on my Pro1.  I've never taken it off that camera.  It's my most used lens, until the 23 ƒ2 comes out at least...

The 16mm is 23mm equiv. focal length, FYI.

 

And don't forget the excellent 18mm!  Size is perfect for street, much nicer than the 27mm, and IQ is excellent.

Edited by Ammut
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 16mm is 23mm equiv. focal length, FYI.

 

And don't forget the excellent 18mm!  Size is perfect for street, much nicer than the 27mm, and IQ is excellent.

I'm aware of the 1.5x factor.  Thank you.  24 is more common than the 21 (14mm equiv).

 

I started to suggest the 18, but it didn't seem to fit his shooting style, so I left it out...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Welcome.

 

I'll make real short and sweet.  See my signature below?  Take a look at those lenses.  It has taken me 3 years to acquire them over time for use on my X-E1, and X-T1 but now you could only pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

Enjoy the adventure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the 1.5x factor.  Thank you.  24 is more common than the 21 (14mm equiv).

 

I started to suggest the 18, but it didn't seem to fit his shooting style, so I left it out...

I mentioned it only because you said the 16mm was 35mm equivalent.  Which it is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Welcome.

 

I'll make real short and sweet.  See my signature below?  Take a look at those lenses.  It has taken me 3 years to acquire them over time for use on my X-E1, and X-T1 but now you could only pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

Enjoy the adventure.

Nice.  I just acquired the X-Pro2 (after being a Nikon FF guy), and immediately purchased the 35mm f/1.4 and the 18mm f/2.  The 16mm f/1.4 for some strange reason was not even on their list of stocked lenses which I find odd, but oh well.  Soon....

Edited by Ammut
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned it only because you said the 16mm was 35mm equivalent.  Which it is not.

I noticed that, but what I meant was that the 35mm equivalent focal length of the 16, is more common then the 14.  Meaning that 24 is more common then 21 (when people speak of a landscape lens, they speak of 24 or 28, I don't think I've ever heard someone mention a 21). I should have worded my statement better by a long shot...lol...

 

I'm glad that you cleared that up for the OP if there was any confusion as to what the 16 actually worked out to be the equivalent to...Sometimes I just assume everyone knows what words are bouncing around in my head and that like myself, everyone automatically adds half the focal length to the lens when talking about it..

 

At any rate...no harm no foul...

Edited by CRAusmus
Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to suggest the 18, but it didn't seem to fit his shooting style, so I left it out...

The 18-55 will give me that focal length in a pinch, but i prefer something wider. That's why the 14 would be nice, but i also like the 16. I am locating local units i can test them out. Im curious how much better the af is with the 16

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to conclude, I ordered the Graphite X-T1, the 18-55 f/2.8, the 50-140 f/2.8, the 27 f/2.8, the 56 f/1.2 and decided on the 16 f/1.4. And a few batteries with an extra charger :)

 

Get some stomach tablets for that GAS attack too ;) Have fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest thiswayup

Thanks.

 

So I was initially looking at the 16mm f/1.4 but after reading the following review and seeing their sample images, I switched to the 14 as it looked sharper over all in their sample images. (http://www.fujivsfuji.com/wide-angle-primes-14mm-f2pt8-vs-16mm-f1pt4-vs-18mm-f2/ ) Is it really believed that the 16 is sharper. I would love the extra stops and the weather sealing, but believing the 14 was that much sharper, I put it on my list.

 

I also went back and forth between the 27 f/2.8 and the 35 f/1.4, but the 27 is the first Fuji Lens I had my eye on (because of the small size). I would love some arguments for/against one or the other if anyone sees any major reason to pick one over the other. (I'd love both, but it's already getting expensive).

 

Given the total amount you are spending, that lens is chickenfeed. And the cost of re-selling if you don't like the lens is a fraction of chickenfeed. I'd suggest that you buy it, may be buying used, shoot, and then decide. 

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...