16-55 lens + (?)

[xpro2inidaho]

Currently switched from Nikon Fx format to Fujifilm X-Pro2 with 16-55mm lens as the starter, mainly for landscape and street scenes and now I'm searching for my second lens to compliment the existing one. Which lens would be most practical and sensible selection? 

Please provide some recommendation.    

[EddieX]

Well what do you like shooting? Are you looking for another zoom or a prime?

[segedi]

Based on your subject preferences:

10-24mm

23/1.4

90mm - some might think this is an odd choice for landscape and street, but I don't!

[Hugh]

I just ordered the 50-230. Haven't received it yet but decided on it because of 230mm tele capability...longest except for the 100-400 which is presently out of my $$$$ range. Found one used, I'm paying almost $550 less than I would for a brand new 55-200. I'm going to see if  4.5/6.7 meets my needs. The samples I've seen on line indicate it might. 

 

[addicted2light]

Ok, you shoot street and landscapes, but to suggest you another lens we'd have to know how you like to shoot, your "style" so to speak.

 

For example I find myself shooting many landscapes at 85mm (on full frame), and very rarely taking out the 18mm (again, on full frame). On the other hand I seem to "see" like a 24mm ff lens when I 'm shooting street. YMMV.

 

Anyway, considering that landscapes don't generally go anywhere you could always stitch should you need something wider than the 16mm you already have. But there is no substitute for a longer lens, so if I were you I'd buy:

 

- the 18/2 (or the 27/2.8 if its focal length suits your style better) for street - both sharp, compact and unobtrusive

- the 50-230 for landscapes - lighter to carry around than the 55-200 and with a smidge more reach

[aceflibble]

First thing I think you need to ask yourself is why you feel the need for a second lens. Are you finding the 16-55 a bit too bulky and want something lighter to use sometimes? Do you find yourself wishing you could zoom in or out further? Is f/2.8 not fast enough for you? 

 

Without knowing any of the above, the thing which jumps to mind is something like the 35mm f/1.4 or 23mm f/1.4, so you have something smaller for when the zoom is just too much, and faster for when the zoom is too slow. If your reason for wanting a new lens is actually to expand your focal length options, then you need to give far more detail—examples, if possible—of what it is you shoot, how you shoot, and which direction you want to move in.

But for the record, unless you're a seasoned professional, it's hard to imagine anyone needing anything more than the 16-55.  That's already got you covered for basically 99% of situations and styles.

[Hugh]

A 16-55 and 50-230 in my bag will cover me for an extremely wide range of situations.  I'd begin with those two economical (by Fuji standards) lenses and then start building my prime collection.

[addicted2light]

A 16-55 and 50-230 in my bag will cover me for an extremely wide range of situations.  I'd begin with those two economical (by Fuji standards) lenses and then start building my prime collection.

 

 

The 16-55 might be cheap, but it is so only in price.*

 

*A bit of background: during the last 20/30 years I've shot mostly landscapes and street with everything from 35mm with pro glass (Canon L, Leica, Zeiss etc.) to a Linhof Technica 5x7" / 13x18cm; so I know a sharp lens when I see one, or through one

 

I was "forced" to buy the 16-55 in kit with the X-T10, because the other kit with the 18-55 wasn't available at the brick-and-mortar shop where I found the camera with a nice discount (cheaper than online, strangely enough). I planned to sell the lens straight out of the bat and replace it with the 18-55, but luckily I tried it first.

 

My guess - but I have no data to support this - is that with such a cheap lens there might be more sample variation than with a more expensive piece of glass. If so I got lucky: at least my sample is really sharp, keeping its own against my adapted Contax Zeiss and MInolta M-Rokkor glass. And I've seen several head-to-head reviews agains the 18-55 where the differences where all but negligible.

 

Sure, most of the primes I have are sharper, especially at the borders, but at least on the (not so exigent) 16Mp sensor the differences in real use are small enough to be often overcome by the convenience of the OIS alone. And even if I have the lens only from a few months, it has already contributed several images to my portfolios.

Edited July 6, 2016 by addicted2light

[Sluw]

Looks like some people are talking about the 16-50 and not the 16-55.

[addicted2light]

Looks like some people are talking about the 16-50 and not the 16-55.

 

 

The OP is talking about the 16-55, but I was answering to Hugh that I think was referring to the 16-50 given he qualifies it as a lens "economical by Fuji standards".

 

But in the end I too got my lenses mixed up 

[Sluw]

They're both great lenses in their price range anyway

[Hugh]

Looks like I caused some confusion, for which I must apologize. Yes, I misread the very first post of this thread and went off rambling about the 16-50. Sorry about that.

[Dvan]

50-140

[Vidalgo]

If you change lenses frequently, worth to have lenses of similar size/weight.
For example, swapping XC16-50 to XF50-140 may be quite uncomfortable, no matter what a camera, but swapping to XC50-230 is much less noticeable for your hands.

[Pierre]

50-140 f2.8

[johant]

I just ordered the 50-230. Haven't received it yet but decided on it because of 230mm tele capability...longest except for the 100-400 which is presently out of my $$$$ range. Found one used, I'm paying almost $550 less than I would for a brand new 55-200. I'm going to see if  4.5/6.7 meets my needs. The samples I've seen on line indicate it might. 

 

For outdoors with good weather, it is a very nice lens.

[mdm]

I just ordered the 50-230. Haven't received it yet but decided on it because of 230mm tele capability...longest except for the 100-400 which is presently out of my $$$$ range. Found one used, I'm paying almost $550 less than I would for a brand new 55-200. I'm going to see if  4.5/6.7 meets my needs. The samples I've seen on line indicate it might. 

 

I did the same but had to get 55-200 later on. As it turned out 4.5/6.7 was not enough (without engaging high ISO) for the half of the shooting conditions. I've won some eBay auction and got 55-200 just for $250 so it didn't kill me. The problem with it is the weight of 55-200. It's toooo havy for me so I use it only when I have to. If there is planty of light I take XC if the sun is low or I'm in a deep shadow (trees, narow streets... anything) I have XF on.

[Nero]

I love the 55-200mm for its balance of quality and price (new or used). I think it's also a great fit for the original poster given their name indicates that they live in Idaho. In that kind of landscape, having some extra reach beyond the 50-140 is just as useful as the wide end of the 16-55. I've heard good things about the 50-230, but since I've owned the 55-200 I simply wouldn't go with anything else after seeing the incredible images it produces. If it's a toss up between those two partly due to price, I would go used 55-200 over new 50-230 any day.

[xpro2inidaho]

I have the Fujinon 16-55mm f2.8 and Samyang 12mm F2.0 which I find rather useful for street, landscape and night photography but, thinking of buying the Fujinon XF35mm f1.4 to "compliment" those existing two lenses.

My question is, would be the 35mm f1.4 redundant or rather it would be a good selection for street and architectural subjects? 

Thank you for your advise.

[yazri]

I have the Fujinon 16-55mm f2.8 and Samyang 12mm F2.0 which I find rather useful for street, landscape and night photography but, thinking of buying the Fujinon XF35mm f1.4 to "compliment" those existing two lenses.

My question is, would be the 35mm f1.4 redundant or rather it would be a good selection for street and architectural subjects? 

Thank you for your advise.

 

I only have the 16-55 and most of the time I'm covered enough. Unless you definitely need the extra light, I'd say the addition of 35mm would be redundant. The 16-55 focuses faster in dimmed light (where the 35mm would struggle) and quietly.

 

Plus, adding more lenses for me adds the complication of "which lens I should use today?". Of course, this is due to the fact that I only have one body, and also the laziness to change lenses on my part.     

[mdm]

Of course, this is due to the fact that I only have one body, and also the laziness to change lenses on my part.     

 

Yep, you are the lazy one! It takes me around 15 sec. to change lenses on my single body. I guess you simply have no idea where to put your bar of gold (16-55) when detach it from the camera.

Edited August 7, 2016 by mdm

[yazri]

Yep, you are the lazy one! It takes me around 15 sec. to change lenses on my single body. I guess you simply have no idea where to put your bar of gold (16-55) when detach it from the camera.

Wouldn't do it even if it took only 2 seconds. Most of the time I'm travelling with family, and thus don't have time to keep changing lenses as well. Also, being a klutz I am, I would have the tendency to drop the lenses during the change, so I'd rather not take the chance.

 

Hardly a bar of gold, really. Got it for effectively €400, but all the more reason to treasure it since I can't afford to pay the original price!

[RogerB]

From what you describe, i would describe our shooting styles as similar. My lens solution is a 14mm, 18-55 and 35mm f/2. I do not change lenses frequently. I typically just mount the one that will do the most good for the longest time (based on the day's activities). 

 

IMO, one of the best exercises you can do when you are trying to make a lens choice, is to tape your zoom to one focal length and use it that way for a week. Evaluate those results and repeat as needed. This can give you great confidence in deciding on a fixed focal length lens for your kit.

 

I use my 14 for interiors, architecture, street (& travel). and landscapes. The zoom quite similar to the way I imagine you use yours. The 35mm f/2 is my weather choice, street, family (& portraiture) and when I need to just travel light.

 

I bought my XPro2 to be the basis for a lightweight kit so that has biased my choices somewhat.

 

Good luck on your choices,

 

Roger

[mdm]

IMO, one of the best exercises you can do when you are trying to make a lens choice, is to tape your zoom to one focal length and use it that way for a week. Evaluate those results and repeat as needed. This can give you great confidence in deciding on a fixed focal length lens for your kit.

 

It sounds easy to do but turned out to be hard to follow. I'm not an impatient person but I failed to use one FL for a single day (18-55) and ended up zooming soon or later. So I've already added 27 and 35f2 to original 18-55 and 'm looking forward to see 23f2.

Edited August 8, 2016 by mdm

[gordonrussell76]

Little tip to reduce stress of changing lenses. I bought a peak design wrist strap that I attach somewhere to my camera bag or rucksack. I find this useful both in term of having the camera anchored to my body if i am shooting somewhere where dropping it would potentially mean losing the camera a boat or cliff top for example. The added advantage is when it comes to lens change, I can remove lens, leave body hanging swap rear caps from new lens, put old lens away and then fix new lens to camera. Ideally not done in a dusty environment. The advantage of this method is that you only have to worry about the lenses, and not juggle the body as well as its anchored.

 

G