Which 3 primes combo is your ideal setup?

[BWalworth]

16, 23 and 56. It's the perfect to-go choice for me.

This was the setup I just used for two weeks in the south of Spain.  I would say that the 23 was used about 75% of the time with the other two being about even.  I love the 56 but may give the new 90 a try when it's released.  By the way, the 16 has become my normal street lens replacing the 18. It's much bigger but damm is it sharp !!!

[MrGecko]

16 23 and 90

[djsumantri]

Already have 14, 56, on XT-1 and waiting for 90.

I use x100s for 28,35.

Sorry, 3 primes is not enough for me cos I shoot landscape, architecture, portrait, and street.

[sukeren]

14 35 90

[juankis]

Today my vote would be for 23mm, 35mm, 56mm, but after July I might change to the new 90mm f2.  

I have a non-Fuji lens (Rokinon 12mm f2.0) to cover the wide shots.

[dko22]

hmm, of the lenses I actually own a two lens set is easy --23 and 60. For three, I would have problems choosing between the 23 and 35 to add to the 14 and 60.

 

If I were allowed to choose primes from scratch and zooms didn't exist in the system then 14, 35 and 90 would be the most useful. Travel light then 14,27 and 60.

[phototank]

Just got the 16mm 1.4 after i sold my 14mm 2.8 a few month ago. The 16mm 1.4 is definitely one of the gretest lenses in Fuji's XF line, and is surprisingly versitile. So i would have to put the 16mm 1.4 for wide nature and astro, 27mm 2.8 for candid general and walk around, and the masterful 56 1.2 for sheering sharpness and bokeh.

[charlyR]

SET 1:  18mm + 27mm + 60mm (often just 27mm + 60mm  )

 

SET 2:  18mm + 27mm + 50-230mm (seldom if more tele is important) 

 

SET 3 = MF-fun-Set: 15mm - 40mm - 90mm (M-Mount)

[tahitizoom]

16,35,90

[citral]

I don't really see how it makes sense to take a 90 over a 56 when you're restricted to 3 lenses only, it's surely not as versatile?

 

I see the most versatile packs as :

 

Cheap, compact and light : 18 - 27 - 35 (35 can make great portraits tbh and is very versatile)

 

High end, more heavy / bulky : 16 - 23 - 56

[mfstrollo]

14 - because speed isn't as important at that angle.  (I'd rather pick the 10-24)

 

23 - because it's the only TRUE prime on the list.   Sorry.  I took too much math.

 

90 - because I can't always get close enough.

[r_kt]

14, 23, 56 - it's what I own, it's all I need

[ScottD1964]

For the longest time I was a two prime fan using the 23/56 (35/85) combo. It was a great two camera set up for spot news. Now I'm finding myself leaning towards the 16, 35, 56 (24,50,85) trilogy. I'll be getting the 90 ASAP but this will probably continue as my basic set up.

 

Scott

[citral]

90 - because I can't always get close enough.

Sure but you can't always step back enough either. If you don't have enough reach with a 56 you likely won't with a 90 either. Or that will be too much. Either way you're screwed if you can't move.

 

And you lose the ability to have a "normal" compression for portraits, with a 90 you're just crushing everything.

 

Really to me the 90 is a fourth lens to have, not a third one.

 

Maybe it's just that it's new so people are excited but will change their mind in 6 months as usual.

[andreapmathis]

16 - capturing nature, also in low light and with rough weather conditions

35 - my allround lens. Sharp, fast, lightweight.

56 - crystall clear, sharp images, people photography, wonderfull bokeh. I am sure the 90 is an amazing lens but I prefer to do some "footwork" to get closer and get in contact and in a relation with my subject

[st1441]

16, 27 and the upcomming 35 f2

[Ctighe]

I don't have the 16 yet, but I plan to add it.

 

My setup would then be 16/35/56.

 

My 10-24 wouldn't likely see as much use, though I do love it.

[adyap8]

16/27/56 but all in f/2 and 27 with aperture ring.

[laddrob]

An interesting question for me b/c I recently switched from mainly using the 18-55 to using primes most of the time (although I think the 18-55 is still great when going out with only one lens, because the IS is so good.

 

Mostly I'm using 14, 35, and 56.  But I do have the 23 and feel like I should use it more. The 35 is great but I find the autofocusing a little slow at times... the 23 may be a little better in that respect. I really like the 35 (50mm equivalent) perspective though.

 

Bob

[russw]

Why limit to Fuji lenses? I like the Zeiss 12 (wider than Fuji 14 and at least as sharp), Fuji 23, Fuji 56

[McFUJI]

I really like the compactness of my 18.  I would like to get the 56.  My XT-1 came w/ the 18-135.  So currently  I count on my trusty x100s for its 35 "prime" and I bought the 50 for it.

[xherion]

Seems like most of you are going to get the new 16mm.

Is it really that good?

You guys are killing me, thought i would do ok with 14/35/56, but now i am really contemplating to switch the 14 with 16mm.

 

Anybody has size comparison between 14 / 16 mm? In picture i mean, not dimensional numbers.

[franco62]

16 , 35 , 90 !!!

[Reynolds]

14, 23, 56....great pairing!!

[PeterC]

I've gone with 18, 35, 60. I have the 27 for times I want to travel really light.