Sold off Canon gear, need to get some Fuji lenses 56mm and 10-24 not sure about.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Hi dudes. You might know me from the Fuji rumours comments section. Anyway, I thought this forum was a better place to put my query.

I currently own:
X-Pro 2 (will buy a XT-2 later this year for sure).
8mm Samyang Fisheye (because it's cheap and fun)
16-55 2.8 (event shoot and family outing lens)

23 1.4 (low light event shoot lens)
35 f/2 (my main daily lens)
90 f/2 (portrait and "good enough for me" macro lens)

I have enough money for the XT-2, 50-140, 100-400, 10-24 and 56 1.2... however it's always good to save a $ here and there so....

Definately will buy:
50-140 (this is to replace my old 70-200 lens, an absolute must have for me, it'll be my main event shoot lens)
100-400 (I've wanted a lens like this for years, nothing can stop me buying this lol)

Not too sure about:
10-24mm (for ultra wide landscapes and cityscapes when I don't want a fisheye effect).
56 1.2 (for shallow DOF upper body portraits, Edit: and possibly for a second low light event shoot lens to go with the 23 1.4)

About the 10-24:
I want something ultra wide that isn't a fish, is it redundant with the 16-55? Will a Samyang 12mm be good enough for occasional ultra wide shots? I do some landscapes, but I'm not a huge landscape guy (I will mainly shoot this stopped down FYI). Less distortion is great for cityscapes (I live in Hong Kong).

About the 56 1.2:
I am impressed with upper body portraits from this lens. I definately use the 90mm for tighter headshots in the studio and on location shoots. I can use LED lighting and get some really nice shallow DOF shots in the studio with the 90mm. However I'm not 100% convinced I NEED a 56mm. In studio situations I am thinking I can switch to this for the typical upper body shot. However is it made redundant by the 50-140? I also think perhaps this might make a nice compliment to the 23mm as a low light event combo, (I used to have a 35mm and 85mm combo for this when I shot Nikon, I do like this combo).

Your thoughts on these things are appreciated.

Also, anything I've missed?

Edited March 19, 2016 by Stealthy Ninja

[Stealthy Ninja]

I just want to add:

 

I shoot nearly everything, but for money I mainly do events and portraits (mainly corporate stuff, but some for individuals and families).  Landscapes and cityscapes for fun.  I don't really do sports, I enjoy shooting sports, but I don't shoot them very often.  Animals and wildlife I hardly ever shoot. 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Stealthy Ninja

[Nick05]

That is a tough question. I have all the lenses you own and on your list except for the 16-55 and 50-140mm. I've held off buying those because I have the Canon equivalents and haven't been shooting any events recently. The 10-24mm is a really nice lens, but I'm not one who shoots a lot of ultra wide images. I had the 17-40mm canon, and sold it to by this for the Fuji so it was more of a swap than a purchase. Ultra wide can be fun, but again it's not something I shoot often. I could have probably easily gone with the Samyang 12mm but wanted to be able to zoom for flexibility. The 56mm is a prime I didn't have before because I never ended up buying an 85mm for Canon. I thought it may be redundant because of the 50mm and 135mm I owned for Canon. I bought the Fuji 56mm for portraits and am really liking the focal length now. If you like to shoot wide open, I would say this is not redundant with the 50-140mm.

 

If the 16-55mm goes wide enough for you, skip the 10-24mm. If not, you could save a little money and buy the Samyang. I would recommend the 56mm though.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Thanks mate. Yeh I'm like you, I don't do super wide much. Usually when I do I just stitch.

 

I think I might hold off on the 10-24 for a bit. 56 1.2 I believe has a bit more use for me. I'll probably get that.

[mdm]

About the 10-24:

I want something ultra wide that isn't a fish.... Less distortion is great for cityscapes (I live in Hong Kong).

 

14mm is distortionless lens and wide enough.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Dang it, I never considered video in the equation.

 

I plan on doing a lot it video with th Fuji system too and for events especially 10-24 (15-35 approx equivalence) with OIS is ideal. Now I have to get the 10-24 ha.

 

Now the debate comes down to the 56 or not. Dang I might just need to yet them all.

 

Ok I've decided.

 

I will get the 56mm as that's slightly more useful. I'll get the 10-24 later as I don't have an immediate need for it (no videography events booked).

Edited March 19, 2016 by Stealthy Ninja

[Nero]

I own both the 16mm prime and the 10-24mm and I don't consider those to be redundant. The widest side of the 10-24mm is unique enough to be worth owning in my mind, especially given the versatility and quality through its range.

[darknj]

The 10-24 is really well corrected, have been using it for almost 6 months now, really nothing wrong about it. Kind of wished it could be WR, but I am being here.

[Marc G.]

The 56mm is my workhorse. I will gladly use it over a zoom at a similar focal length ANY time as the zooms simply cannot compare to it. Whether you do need it or not, it comes down to you. You should know already, though, as you used the 85 on your nikon. Did the 70-200 make your 85 redundant?

[deva]

I love the 23 and 56 combo (best on 2 bodies) for low light events... I do lots of street shooting and low light events and the extra stops make a big difference. I'm quite happy with just those 2 at such events.

 

I'm going to get the 50-140 soon, but there is no chance I would give up the 56. It is very comfortable in the hand, balances nicely on the X-T1 and is fast and sharp. 

[czechappleguy]

Rent, Rent, Rent...then make your decision!

 

Czech

[Stealthy Ninja]

Thanks guys. Very helpful. I will definitely get the 56 and the 10-24 both seem useful for different things for me. The two lens (23 and 56) combo on two bodies to compliment the 16-55/50-140 zoom combo seems great. 90mm f2 doesn't really give me much of a speed boost over the 2.8 lenses and at an event, if I'm going to give up the flexibility of a zoom it'll be for the lens that let's me have the greatest light gathering capacity (that's the 56). Also the 56 and 90 seem to couple well in portrait/studio shoots (talking from experience using a 85mm and 135mm combo).

 

As for the 10-24, I can see how useful it would be for video and when you want to go wide, the wider you can get the better. Of course you don't always want to go fish eye. So yes the 10-24 is definately a lens I'll get later

[Warwick]

It's possible to have too many lenses and too much choice. At the opposite extreme many of the greatest photographers used a single lens for most of their output (Cartier-Bresson with his 50mm, Garry Winogrand with his 28mm). But many working pros only take a couple of lenses and a couple of bodies on a shoot - see Kevin Mullins's kit: http://shotkit.com/kevin-mullins/

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Stealthy Ninja]

LOL I never take all my lenses out at once, you just take what you need.

 

Unfortunately I'm not a world famous top tier photographer so I'll buy what I feel I need for what I shoot.

 

Ken Mullins takes 3 bodies and 5 lenses to shoot weddings. That's not a small amount.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Stealthy Ninja

[CRAusmus]

I hear a lot of people raving about the Samyang 12.  You might consider that one.  Maybe some folks who have it will chime in.  I have the 14, and it's plenty wide for me, but you might not consider 21 to be wide enough...Especially coming from the 8...

 

As for the 56...You will love it.  I found it to be incredibly sharp and very quick.  I think you'll like it for some of your events and will find it very versatile..

Edited March 20, 2016 by CRAusmus

[Stealthy Ninja]

Living in Hong Kong I can go to a shop and try the Samyang 12mm. In fact I did once. It's worth the money I suspect. The 8mm sure is (if you're into the fisheye look).

 

Here's a test shot I took with the 12mm when I tested it.

http://i.imgur.com/7yXLWvR.jpg

[Sluw]

The Samyang 12mm is definitely worth the money if you don't need AF. Is sharp, small and light. I'm really happy with it.

 

I also see you want to shoot quite some video (even paid gigs)... I don't know if you shot video before on your Fuji but it's really not that good. It's fine for some fun shots in between but I'd suggest something else for video. For photography, great choice.

[Stealthy Ninja]

The Samyang 12mm is definitely worth the money if you don't need AF. Is sharp, small and light. I'm really happy with it.

 

I also see you want to shoot quite some video (even paid gigs)... I don't know if you shot video before on your Fuji but it's really not that good. It's fine for some fun shots in between but I'd suggest something else for video. For photography, great choice.

Yeh the 12mm looks nice indeed.

 

As for video, in the past I'd agree with you totally, however video on the Xpro2 is actually very good (it could do with more features, but the quality coming out is apt for pro work). Additionally, the XT-2 seems to be going go be even better for video. If I wasn't impressed with the xpro2 video I'd have never left Canon, however the Xpro2 is such an improvement over the old video I have no issues using it for my work.

 

I actually own a very small production company.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Stealthy Ninja

[Hzam]

http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/?o=XC50-230

 

Check this website out with regards to the FOV of the 10-24 and 56mm.

 

Alternatively the 14mm is an ultra wide prime lens that you would want to take into consideration. 

[immo_p]

I still consider the 50-140 the best lens in the lineup - have not checked the F2/90 though. Sharp like a prime plus amazing OIS, even wide open. You will not be disappointed for sure.

 

I thought about selling the 56 since I don't use it much anymore and don't necessarily need 1.2...but I love the aesthetics. ;-)

[JaapD]

The 50-140 is incredibly sharp. I don’t think you’ll see any differences from the print when using a fixed lens such as the 90mm. On the same time the zoom gives you the opportunity on maximizing the scene on the sensor, i.e. not needing to crop during post.

 

I could not recommend the 10-24 though. The center of the image may be good but the edges end corners are not. There are many tests showing this.  In the end I have settled with 14mm / 16-55mm /  50-140mm (in the near future also a 1.4x TC).

[Marc G.]

I still consider the 50-140 the best lens in the lineup - have not checked the F2/90 though. Sharp like a prime plus amazing OIS, even wide open. You will not be disappointed for sure.

 

I thought about selling the 56 since I don't use it much anymore and don't necessarily need 1.2...but I love the aesthetics. ;-)

Sharpness is not the most valuable property of a lens. When it comes to portraits, the whole look is more important. That's where the 56 1.2, the 56 1.2 APD even more so, and the 90, also even more so, shine. I used the 50-140 extensively for a year but I simply didn't like it for people work. It's fine for sports and events but with portraits, primes reign supreme.

 

That being said, the 90 is even sharper, than the zoom.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Marc G.

[gordonrussell76]

Get the 10-24mm hugely versatile lens. Great for street, great ofr video.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Well I went and bought the 50-140, 100-400, 56mm

 

I asked for the 10-24 but currently no stock. So I'll wait a bit on that one.

 

The 50-140 is very good. Just like my old Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II. Just as sharp but the OIS on the fuji is better than the IS on the Canon. This is a worthy substitute for me and it's lighter to boot

 

The 100-400 is about the size of my old 70-200. It's so fun to shoot with though avoiding mistakes at the long end can be challenging. The OIS on this lens is the best I've ever used. At the 100mm end its like you've got it on a tripod at 400mm it moves about a bit, but it's certainly clearly working. Sharpness is a bit below the 50-140 but it's certainly very sharp. So fun though but needs practice to get the best out of it.

 

The 56mm is a light sucking machine! I am quite glad I have this. The 90mm is maybe slightly better in terms of pure IQ. But if you want a low light short tele for event work, this lens can't be beat. It also seems to be a great portrait companion to the 90mm. I'll say now that although the 90mm gives better IQ. The 56mm is the one to get if you only want or can afford one lens.

 

As for the 10-24...one day.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Stealthy Ninja

[segedi]

Wanted to pick up a 16-55, but saw a 10-24 used, locally, so that was my first lens purchase for a newly acquired X-T1. I'm pretty happy with it so far! 

I shoot a lot of street and some landscape. I've had it for less than a week and haven't used it for street yet, but I did shoot some landscapes:

 

I also picked up a 18-55 for a steal, but don't have it yet. The 50-140 and 56mm are next on my list. I'd be a happy camper with those.

 

As an aside, I have also tried a Leica Summilux 50mm, Summarits (35/75mm) and they all work pretty well. The 50 Summilux is holding me back from the 56mm purchase as the IQ is very nice, but I'm not convinced I want to manually focus anything on the X-T1...