Best Quality lens for nature/landscape & travel

[sharkman53]

There are great prices on Fuji glass right now so I want to take advantage of the savings.  I am putting the cart before the horse since I don't own a Fuji camera yet, I am waiting for the XT-2 to come to market.  I am considering the 10-24 or 14mm prime.  I continue to read that the 50-140 has a lot of noise coming from the lens which could be very distracting when shooting with it. I like the range plus I would get either the 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter.  Usually the 16-55 has a very good price when bundled with the camera body.  My favorite ranges are 24-70, 70-200 and super wide lens.  I am shooting with Nikon FF cameras and fast glass.  I am purchasing the Fuji because of the size and weight, hiking with 20-30 lbs is really getting old. 

 

I want the best glass so I am looking for suggestions, the rebates are on through the month of June.

 

Thanks for the help.

Wayne

[Nero]

Most versatile if you just want one lens is the 16-55, especially if you're hiking with it and want weather resistance. If you're looking to add another lens or two to that and weight is a big concern, you could add both the 55-200 and the 10-24 for less than the cost of the 50-140. I think that the 55-200 is very underrated given the price and superb image quality and it has more reach and less weight. 

[aceflibble]

If you like a 24-70 and 70-200 on your Nikon bodies, the obvious answer is to go for the 16-55 and 50-140 lenses. The problem there is that you said you want to cut down on the weight and size, and those two lenses defeat that. An X-T2 with the 16-55 and 50-140 weighs more-or-less the same as a mid-range SLR with the 24-70 and 70-200 style of zoom lenses. You'd be saving a little weight and size, but not much, and it costs you effectively one stop of light.Yyou'd get the same size/weight/light difference by simply moving from the f/2.8 zooms to f/4 versions. (Being an ex-Canon user, I'm not familiar with Nikon's offerings; I'm only assuming they do f/4 versions of the 24-70 and 70-200, like Canon do.) When you then factor in the need to carry more spare batteries—the X-T cameras eat up battery power about 3.5x quicker than the average SLR—you start to question why you made the switch. When you also talk about things like the 10-24 or using teleconverters, frankly you're then not saving any size/weight at all, but you are losing light and convenience.

If weight and size is the primary reason for switching, I'd go for the 18-55 and 55-200, or even consider using only the 18-135. Switching to a couple of primes would also give you a significant drop in bulk; take a look at the 23mm and 60mm, to cover the middle range of the 24-70 and 70-200, respectively. There's no weight or size advantage to be had if you go straight for the 'equivalent' zooms. They're the same size and weight as the f/4 Canon/Nikon versions. You can't cut down on bulk by replacing like-for-like. The X-T2 won't be lighter than a standard Nikon SLR in any significant, meaningful way, either. Consider the X-T10 or X-E cameras, to save more weight; they're not weather resistant, but the X-T1/2 isn't actually that weather resistant, either. Having used pretty much every combination of Fuji lens and body you can name I can also say that there's no increase in image quality to be had from the new sensors (Pro2/T2) until you start shooting at ISO 800 or higher; if you're below ISO 800, it's really impossible to tell the new files from the old ones once they're resized to a normal viewing size. If you're printing your images, there's no difference at all; even at ISO 3200, I've not been able to tell a Pro2 file from a T10 file, with both printed at the same size.

 

There's not really any such thing as "best glass" with Fuji, if you're looking at the XF lenses. The only one which is optically inferior is the 18mm prime, and even that is just fine by Canon/Nikon standards. The primes are generally a fraction sharper than the zooms, just like with SLR lenses, but that's about it. If you take every Fuji XF lens, except the 18mm, and stop them all down to f/4, they will all give you identical image quality. There's a little more variation when you use each lens wide-open, but they're all as good as you can expect; there's no Canon or Nikon lens which is sharper wide-open as any of the Fuji lenses, so whatever you're used to with your Nikon, the Fujis will all at least match.

 

Have a hard think about whether you prioritise bulk over lens focal range, or vice-versa. You're going to have to compromise on one to get the other.

[bradsarno]

I still can't get over how wonderful the 18-55mm "kit" lens is. It is not like other kit lenses. It's like (or better than) a high end pro zoom lens from any other brand. It's fast, it's sharp, it's got beautiful bokeh, it renders with that special Fuji look and pop, the colors are amazing, the contrast is wonderful, has the best image stabilization in the business, it focuses VERY quickly, handles great, it's compact, it's outrageously affordable, and the zoom range is just about all most people need. It compares to lenses that cost well over $1000. That's my #1 go-to, do-all lens. 

 

Brad