I would love some help picking lenses.

[Djesse_Jones]

Hi there,

 

I am currently in the process of upgrading all my camera gear since my current gear is very outdated. For the body I've already settled on the X-T5, but I can't figure out the lenses yet so I was hoping to find some advice here. I will mostly take the camera with me on hikes (this is also where the WR of the X-T5 comes in handy) so about 70/80% will be on my travels which will include landscape & street photography, the rest will be wildlife or zoo animals, some astro photography and maybe a tiny bit of portrait.

 

Starting of I was leaning towards the XF18-135mm, very versatile and also has that WR so one less thing to worry about. But since the main goal is landscape & street photography, a prime lens plus a zoom (in my mind) makes a lot more sense. So right now I'm thinking of getting the XF23mmF2, tho I'd love some advice on this as well. My reasoning behind the XF23mmF2 was: wide aperture, sharper than a zoom and 35mm in 35mm format equivalent (that's why I think I should pick it over the XF35mmF2).  

  

Now for the big part the zoom lens, this is where I need the most advice. The way I see it I can either go for the XF55-200mm or the XF70-300mm both of which have pros and cons for me.

 

Starting with the XF55-200mm,  

Pro: its focal length is closer to the prime lens I want so I don't have such a large gap.  

Con: It's not WR, maybe I'm putting to much value on this but is does seem very nice to have.

 

Then with the XF70-300mm,  

Pros: obviously it has more range for those long distance shots, its compatible with the teleconverters, the reviews point out it's a lot sharper in the 200mm range and it has WR.  

Cons: this leaves a big gap in my focal length and has a smaller aperture.

 

If I missed anything please let me know and if you need more information to give me better advice please ask.

 

Thank you all in advance! 

Edited June 15 by Djesse_Jones

[jerryy]

Welcome to the forum.

I have the XF 55-200mm lens, it is one I would not easily give up. Mine is sharp at 200mm, so which one is better at that focal length seems to come down to sample variation.

The 70-300mm is newer so you would be getting the newer designed motors that could get you faster af in adverse conditions — if you do not use mf all that much.

Fujifilm has two 50mm lenses, one at f1.0, one at f2.0, both with WR. Depending on your budget, you can get these new or you can pick up these from the used market vendors, though the f1.0 lens is the more expensive choice. There are lots of good third party lenses that can also work in filling that missing focal length.

Edited June 16 by jerryy

[BobJ]

If you are going on hikes you really don't want the f1.0 50mm or indeed any f1.0 lens. Something light weight would be better. So, if you want a 50mm because you decide to go for the 70-300, it's  the f2.0. The 23mm f2.0 is a sharp lens, although it gets a little softer when focused very close. I have one and would recommend it. WR is somewhat overrated. I had the 55-200 and used it in some horrendous Scottish weather with no problems. I replaced it with the 70-300, mostly for the longer reach, but it is faster and sharper than my particular 55-200. You might want a wideangle. The 14mm is a good lens.

[George_P]

I agree with @BobJ re. the 50f2. I have put lots of pics in the Winter Landscapes thread, all taken with that lens, have a look. This site accepts only resized pics, if you want I can send you some raws or fullsize jpegs to judge. Small, light, WR, a great lens. If I could have only one lens, that would be it. 

Edited June 18 by George_P

[Astigmatism]

I have the 18-135 and think it's the one lens to have if you're only having one. It's kinda big and heavy for hiking tho.

I also have the 100-400, and the 2X. These are more of a project to use. For the sharpest photos you want a heavy tripod (with which results are noticeably sharper if you turn IS off). Though, it's pretty amazing how well handheld works with IS on (I use an X-T5 so more powerful IS with both body and lens working). Can't imagine bringing it on a real hike.

I do also have the 50 f/1.0 and the 80 mm macro, both really special purpose lenses, and both really big and heavy for hiking. Can't imagine doing that.

I'm a pretty serious hiker. I did a 20 mile hike just four days ago. I usually don't carry a serious camera, though I have an iPhone 13 pro plus. When I do carry a serious camera, I often carry my X-T30 ii with the 18-55 zoom, a pretty nice versatile combo, the one I lend my spouse when we go picture taking. It's much lighter than the X-T5 plus 18-135 combo. Or I'll put the 40 mm pancake lens on the X-T30. This combo almost disappears in my hands, it's so small and light.

The 55-200 and the 70-300 are both completely unfamiliar to me, so nothing to contribute there.

[jwascher]

I agree with Astigmatism. I carry the 18-135 for travel, and when I just don't know what I'm going to need. I love the 23f2 as a great walking around lens. Both of these are WR. I have a 100-400 that I use for sports (grandkids playing lacrosse). Very heavy lens and almost too much sometimes. Can't focus down below about 15 feet, and even at 100, it is too much if the action is close. I have several other lens' that I use for various shots, but I think if you start with the 23 and 18-135 and see what you feel you are missing after that.

Edited June 24 by jwascher

[MARRIEDGUY9]

I have the 70-300 and the 150-600.............the former is soooooooo easy to carry on hikes which I do very often.  The 600mm is a special lens (at least it is for me); however, it is heavy and I'm more selective on when I use it.  For overall run and gun, hiking, wildlife, the 70-300 is a pretty cool option.......mostly because of its size and weight.