Help decide which lens should I pick

[aivihc]

Hi Fujian!

 

Currently own X-T1 with 23mm 1.4. I decided to get another lens since I need certain focal range for my work. 

 

My type of photography :

• Event/Wedding = 30%
• Travel/Landscape = 30%
• Portrait = 40%

 

So far what I had in my mind:-

 

1) 18-55 & 56mm 

 

2) samyang 12mm & 56mm

 

3) 16-55 

 

I need some opinion. I did some extensive research but still can't decide. Which path will you go?

Edited June 3, 2016 by aivihc

[milandro]

12mm 16-55 56mm

[Warwick]

You have a really nice 'standard' lens. I'd look for a nice wide-angle and portrait lens to go with it. For wide, there's the very affordable and very wide 12mm, then there's the Fuji 14mm which is a great landscape lens, and the slightly more expensive, slightly bulkier 16mm f1.4 which is a beautiful lens, especially if you want to use it for people photography in tight spaces as well as for landscapes. Then there's the often-overlooked 18mm which is cheap, small and a really good indoor/photojournalism reportage lens. Any one of those is good.

 

For your portrait lens I'd go for the 56 f1.2, which is a great lens and more versatile than the 90mm

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Larry Bolch]

Unless you really want to do portraits with only one eye in focus, consider the 60mm as well. Very high-quality lens, able to focus close and much less cost than the 56mm. Since it has such a great range from very close to infinity, it can take a few moments longer to focus. A half-press of the shutter will lock it onto your subject, making the response instantaneous when you press the shutter the rest of the way. Pre-focus is a good habit with any lens.

[milandro]

I didn’t dare going there for fear to be flamed, once again, over the use of the 60mm for portraits and macro shots.

 

One of the best lenses in Fuji’s panoply.

 

But when people around these parts and elsewhere dismiss it as an halfbaked thing (and probably never used it) then I think that washing the ears of a donkey is often a waste of water soap and time.

[kim]

Had the 16-55 for a while and added the 23 & 56. Loving the 56 for portraits, the fall off is really beautiful. The 16-55 is a very good all round lens that will cover most of your shooting needs. Now I carry two bodies and the 23 & 56, the other lenses come out as needed. those two are great for weddings, portraits and events, I'd then add in the 12mm for the wide thing.

[Tommyboy]

I would (and did) purchase a 56 1.2. What an amazing lens. I've added the 16 1.4, though I've not shot with it.

 

The 16-55 seems like a workable, effective alternative with a great rep. If it were OIS, I would likely have purchased it instead.

[Tikcus]

For portraits (in studio) i'm more than happy with the 60mm F/2.4, my pockets are not deep enough for the 56 F/1.2 at the minute.

Outside I'm happy with the 35mm F/1.4, I find the focal length more flexible than the 60mm

I don't do a lot of landscapes but use the 18mm F/2 for street.

 

f i had unlimited funds, I'm sure i'd buy the 16 F/1.4, 35 F/1.4, and 56 F/1.2.

[Naddan28]

The 16-55mm is a workhorse lens. Yes it's a bit heavy but on an XT1 (especially with a grip) it's pretty well balanced.

 

For landscapes, especially seascapes (where the ability to zoom with your feet is often limited) it's a super lens that's weather sealed.

 

For travel, especially with non-photographers though it's perfect. It's a one stop lens that does 90% of what a 3/4 prime kit does but without any worries about weather, or your photography encroaching on the non-photographers travel experience.

 

I've not shot a wedding with it, but if you're a single body shooter again its versatility will be huge. The only issue I suspect you'll encounter is achieving ultra thin DoF/selective focus. Clearly this is a 56mm or 90mm territory.

 

On that basis, I'd go for the 16-55mm and look to add the 90mm in the future.

[aceflibble]

It's hard to recommend the 16-55 because, for its size, it doesn't really offer much that the 18-55 'kit' lens doesn't. The real reason to buy the 16-55 is because you feel you absolutely need that extra stop at the long end. If the weddings you shoot are in very dark venues more often than not, maybe for you the 16-55 will be better. If f/4 is fine for you, save some money and weight and buy the 18-55, instead. In terms of sharpness, contrast, and focus performance, they're basically the same once you're shooting at the same aperture. Don't forget the 18-55 has OIS, which will help in lower light if you don't need to totally freeze fast action.

If you'd be happy with primes, I'd really suggest the 14mm and 56mm. 14, 23, and 56 is a helluva all-round prime kit for all the things you've listed. In fact, those three + the 18-55 is what I'd almost always recommend for anyone; the primes for when you can take your time, and the zoom for speed. I see all the other Fuji lenses as being more speciality. Those three primes and the standard zoom are your best bet for all-round use and variety, which is what you sound like you need. Landscape through to events and portraiture is a lot to ask from just a handful of lenses, and I'd be wary of buying anything which was only suitable for one of those things and useless for the others. (90mm, I'm looking at you.)

[deva]

The 16-55 is weather sealed. The 18-55 isn't.

 

24mm (35 equal) is a favorite of mine and the 18-55 is just not quite wide enough for me as a do it all standard lens. Someone else might be fine with it

 

I only tried the 18-55 out in the store, but my impression is that the 16-55 has faster/more sure AF

[aivihc]

thanks all for the feedback, really appreciate it. I'm narrowing my options it's either  samyang 12mm + xf 56mm combo or the Swiss knife 16-55mm. Actually I don't really mind switching lenses I've been doing that during my Nikon days. While I do quite lot of zooming during my Canon quite some time too. My main priority is wide+'bokehness'

[Aswald]

12mm + 56mm would be my take.

 

12 + 23 + 56 combo should be a really nice suite of lenses for your kind of photography.

[Jack Todd]

I use the 16-55 with an XT-1 for flash, portraiture and event photography with 10-24 and 55-200;  but use an XT-10 with 18-135 for travel. I had the primes and swapped for 16-55 which as noted is not OIS but covers 80% of needs. Also had the 18-55 OIS for travel but felt I needed a bit more reach and carry only one lens for travel.

[Morgo]

In a single lens the 16-55 seems the best bet, its fairly wide, fairly fast at 2.8 and covers a good range. Has great IQ, weather sealing etc.

 

That said I'd probably like a 16 and 56 to add to the 23 due to the size and weight of the 16-55.

[PDiddy]

I do events with the 16-55 on my xp2 with grip attachment and find it pretty well balanced. I was doing events with  a 16, 23, 56 combo and was not enjoying swapping lenses all the time. Although these three lenses are killer in low light, so I will usually bring them as backup for those situations. I rented the 18-50 first because I thought that would be the better option for me, over the 16-55. On the xp2 I felt the 16-55 images were noticeably sharper. This may not be the case on the 16mp sensor. Plus I love having any extra stop I can get. I always end up wishing for it when I don't have it. I use the 35 f2 or the 23 for my everyday lenses. I have a tough time deciding between the two. 

 

Honestly, I haven't picked up a Fuji lens I didn't like.