Which 3 primes combo is your ideal setup?

[Under Fire]

18mm, 35mm, 90mm

[jlmphotos]

From all the excellent Fuji Primes, if you can only carry 3 in your bag, which are they?

 

Pick 3 from choices below:

14, 16, 18, 23, 27, 35, 56, 60, 90mm

 

Mine is 14 / 35 / 56.

 

16mm 1.4,  35 1.4 and the 60 2.4

THE BEST  and if I could only carry ONE zoom:  the 18-55  hands down

[Elsee]

14 f/2,8 + 23 f/1,4 + 35 f/1,4

[nimzof]

16mm, 35 f/2, and the 50 (56mm for events)

[Mervyn]

If I'd had to pick three primes I'd choose the 16, 23f1.4 and 56.

 

When I got my first Fuji camera (an X-T1) I started out with the 23f1.4 and the 56f1.2. A great combo and if I wouldn't have been tempted to try anything else I could have done almost all of my photography with just those two. Later I discovered the fun of and use for wide-angle lenses and I added the 16mm. It's just amazing what look the 16mm can produce. It focuses super close and under certain situations it creates almost painterly bokeh. Also it's cool for giving a grand total of your subject in it's environment. You can get really creative with the 16mm, but I do think of it as an effect; use it sparingly to avoid over-use. For my case (portraiture) the 23f1.4 is a better choice then the 16 though. It's a little bit less extreme, but I find it better suited for photographing people. Also it has a better quality bokeh.

 

Now of these three lenses I only still own the 23f1.4. I've sold the 16 because for my use the 23 is quite similar and actually more useful. And I've switched the 56 for the 90 because I find the 90 better optically and with more accurate focus. Also I think it has just a bit more depth of field wide open whilst still having the same beautiful out of focus background.

 

Besides the 23f1.4 and 90 I've added the 16-55f2.8 for flexibility, a speedier workflow and for not having to switch lenses all the time. And the zoom still gives me access to 16 and 55mm, because I still need those focal lengths. The 90 better complements the zoom then the 56 would and I use the 23f1.4 for low-light scenarios, slightly more bokeh at the same focal length, or for when I want to travel with just one lightweight lens.

 

At a certain point I owned 5 primes and switching lenses became too much of a hassle, especially on a windy beach with blowing sand. I thought long and hard about adding a 2nd body, which would have been an excellent option, but in the end I decided to go for a zoom instead. For me the use of a zoom has less of a disconnect then switching camera bodies. It helps me to stay in a state of flow. And people are more used to seeing someone with a zoom then with two camera bodies. I don't want to draw too much attention to myself whilst making photographs. Now I'd only add a 2nd body if I'd need a back-up camera.

 

Long story short; for primes I think the 16, 23f1.4 and 56 are pretty much ideal, with the 16mm being optional.

[Peterm69uk]

If I'd had to pick three primes I'd choose the 16, 23f1.4 and 56.

 

 

This is my set-up, I love these primes, previously owned and sold these before buying them again.

[Warwick]

I'm changing my 3 lens setup. I currently have the 18, the 23mm f2 and the 35mm f2, but I find I don't use the 35 very much. I think I want something a bit further from the 23mm, for when I want more reach and compression, and a shallower depth of field. I read this by Kevin Mullins: http://f16.click/social-documentary-photography/when-maja-met-lenny-birth-story.html

So now I've ordered the 50mm f2, and if I like it, it will replace the 35.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[petergabriel]

I would go:

14mm f2.8 - tack sharp, lovely rendering

35mm f1.4 - tack sharp, sweet rendering

50mm f2 - extremely sharp, great bokeh, punchy

 

I'm still considering the 90mm which just might replace the 50mm.

[Hermelin]

I would go:

14mm f2.8 - tack sharp, lovely rendering

35mm f1.4 - tack sharp, sweet rendering

50mm f2 - extremely sharp, great bokeh, punchy

 

I'm still considering the 90mm which just might replace the 50mm.

Makes sense. 50 is pretty close to the 35 in focal lenght and with the 1.4 opening on your 35 you get about the same thin DOF, so 90 is a better compliment IMO

Edited August 10, 2017 by Hermelin

[Mike G]

!6mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, 56mm 1.2 + the 90mm 2.0?

 

I can't count 

[aivihc]

my current setup

samyang/roki 12mm 

23mm 1.4 (most fav)

56mm 1.2

 

might replace the 12mm for 8-16 (soon?)

[SamJage]

+1

 

Switching between 14mm and 56mm on my X-T1, and 23mm on my X100T

My Man, That's what I'm saying currently running 35mm f2 / 18-55mm on X-T1 and X100T at 23mm

[SamJage]

I'm torn. I have 16, 23, 35 and 56.

Taking more than 2-3 lenses out with me is overkill, I find.

It means I have to carry a bigger bag and I start looking like 'the photographer' rather than just enjoying what I'm doing and having a camera with me.

I take what I can fit in my Billingham Hadley Digital - a camera with a lens on and 1-2 extra lenses

The 16 and 23 are definitely part of my kit

But I can't decide between 35 and 56

I like natural photography, close to what the human eye sees, but I'm torn between which of those 2 lenses are most useful

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sounds to me like you're in need of that 16-55

[Tom G Scotland]

16-55/2.8 and 50-140/2.8...

 

 

...they are considered primes right?

that's what I use plus the 55-200 great lens

 

Tom G  Scotland

Edited August 29, 2017 by Tom G Scotland

[Steve Lew]

16/1.4, 50/2, 90

[nDman]

14mm

23mm f1.4

80mm macro

 

PLUS 27mm, you can't ignor this

[jordijardiel]

16 + 56 + 23(X-100T)

 

Enviado desde mi HUAWEI GRA-L09 mediante Tapatalk

[finguin]

Love my 14mm F2.8 + 23mm F2.0 + 56mm F1.2 combo  

 

Covers everything from architecture over street to portraiture.

[czato]

First I had 35mm F1.4. Then I added 56mm F1.4 and 23mm F1.4. I sold 18-55mm as I stopped using it altogether.

I also have 10-24mm and 55-200mm (rarely used). 

 

But recently I started to miss smaller size lenses. So I bought 18mm F2 and it seems quite good to me. 

It is sharp and has nice bokeh. I'm also thinking about getting 16-50mm kit lens to have cheap wide angle when needed.

 

So I have 2 setups:

Small - 18mm + 35mm

Large - 23mm + 56mm

 

Somehow, 56mm seems to lack contrast to me. It just does not have this "bite". Does anyone share the same opinion?

Maybe switching to 50mmF2 or 60mmF2.4 would be better (cheaper, lighter) choice?

[Wiredin]

35mm f2.0, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2.0 is my current wish list.

 

I got the 35/2 and 50/2 right now with the 90 on order.

 

I've shot my first wedding with the 35/50 combo this past weekend and have another coming up next weekend and hopefully will have the 90 for that. Really wanted the extra length for the ceremony and to compress the scene just a little bit more. I'm also trying to go for a pure prime wedding kit. (will add a wider lens in the future)

[p360]

Currently have 35 f2 and 50 f2, with 90 f2 on its way. 

[Wiredin]

Currently have 35 f2 and 50 f2, with 90 f2 on its way. 

are we twins? 

 

I also got the 35/50 and waiting on the 90. 

[stilian]

16 1.4 (I had the XF 14mm 2.8 but sold it since I will get the 16 1.4 soon)

35 1.4 (I had the newer XF 35mm WRm but I sold it since I prefer the old one ... the focus isn't really far behind actually)

90 2.0 (I'll get this one too)

 

(for travel I keep the excellent 18-55 which by the way was sharper at 35mm (F5.6) than the XF35 WR (at F5.6) :) )

[Nero]

23mm f/1.4

35mm f/1.4

56mm f/1.2

 

I find that there is very little I can't do with these based on my personal style of photography. I also own the 16mm f/1.4, but I only add that to my bag if I feel like the locations I'm visiting will require it. The 16mm has amazing image quality, but it's not something I use daily. For the most part I've found that the 23mm is wide enough for what I do and most of the time if I bring my 55-200mm I end up using it at 55 or a few shots close to 200. Bringing the 56mm instead of that means I gain a lot of options for depth of field and only miss out on a handful of long shots.

[bralk]

14+23+50