Compactness or quality?

[lorenzolessi]

Hi everyone, I use Fuji x-e2 with 3 lenses: 14mm / 23mm / 18-55mm, mainly for street / travel / urban landscape shooting. My ideal setup would be with three primes: 16mm / 23mm / 35mm, or in 35mm: 24 / 35 / 50, the triplet I was using with Olympus OM about ten years ago, when I tried black and white on film. I'm a "total" digital photographer (i also use Canon for work and landscape) now but I liked the combo I used back in those days.

Now: I've bought nearly all used equipment and I'm very satisfied with quality. The 23mm is a really stellar lens, like everyone says. It's not so well balanced anyway with the x-e2, but the images makes the compromise acceptable. For the wide angle part I bought the 14mm keeping in mind that with a bit of crop I ended up with a 16mm fov. I tried 18mm prime and it's very good and compact (and f/2) but it's not always my preferred focal length, I find i wanna go wider or narrower, but I have it on the zoom and sometimes it suites for certain scenes. I tried, at a Fuji event, even the 16mm and it seems on par with the 23mm, but even bulkier. As for the 35mm: I use this focal length for some portraiture, details and for "blur shots ", but I like the wide angles so much more this will be my last lens to have. I found AF is not its strength but quality is definitely there.

I shoot not very often in low light, nor wide open, so f/1,4 is not an absolute need.

Here are the options i'm considering:

Sell 14 and 18-55 when I will find a 16mm at a proper price, and then looking for a 35. I will gain quality, but the compactness is almost gone (for Fuji standards)

 

Sell 14 and 18-55 for 18 and 35 and gain compactness except for the 23, but I sacrifice the 16mm.

 

Sell 14, 23mm and 18-55 for 18, 35 and a X100s. I used it one day and even if Af is not on par with the x-e2 and OVF is not a thing I need (but it's nice), the camera is a valid one. I will gain another body (so maybe not the lightest setup, but flexible) and compactness, with more than acceptable quality, no 16mm, though.

 

Sell everything and buy an X100T with the adapters, I will gain compactness, lightness and constant f/2, even with the loss of 16mm, a bit of af speed and a little optical quality.

 

Have your say!

[Michaelortiz]

Don't forget you could sell all 3 of your lenses and get the 16-55 and have all 3 focal lengths you want have weather sealing and never need to change lenses. I have the 23, and 56 as well but have only reached for the 56mm for portraits. Yes you are carrying the camera with a large lens but the combo still fits in a small camera bag and your covered. I find the image quality on the 16-55 to easily rival my primes. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents out their. Good luck finding what's right for you.

[Sluw]

For me portability is one of the reasons I bought mirrorless. For some it's more important than others. Have you thought of getting the 27mm? On the X-E2 it's as big and a bit lighter than any x100 camera. I don't know where you're from but there are some cashbacks going on... That'd give you portability for the days you don't want carry those big and heavy primes around.

 

If you don't need weather sealing and the f/1.4 I'd keep the 14mm. It's an awesome lens, super sharp, light and you have that bit extra wide angle. Personally I'd miss that on the 16mm (and keeping a lens is cheaper than selling and buying).

 

And I didn't read why you dislike the 18-55. It's great. But if you want more bokeh you could buy the 35mm. 

 

Edit: or do what Michaelortiz says. You could add the 27 for portability and you're good to go.

[bhu]

Your setup looks fine, to me. If you really value compactness, get a used X100-something, an even smaller P&S, or a phone with a good camera.

 

The 16 has more glass than you need for indoor, or close outdoor, shooting unless you like a lot of subject-islolation. The 16 is for low light, wide FoV.

The 10-24 is handy for architectural work but is relatively bulky.

The 16-55 is larger and does not have the OIS of the 18-55.

 

14 does great for FoV and I stop it down as it is, turning up the camera's ISO, instead.

23 does great for low light shots and is between wide FoV and portrait lens options where traditional 35 mm has always been.

18-55 is great for OIS in a relatively fast and compact zoom

If you know you are going to have a lot of light and can handle the added bulk, the 18-135 is all right. It is smaller than "pro" zooms.

[Rod]

I've often thought that a great compact set up would be the X-E2 with the 18, 27, and 35f2 when available. That combination is not very wide, not very long or very fast, but you could sure do a lot with it. I have the 18-55 zoom which is way better than any kit zoom has a right to be. When I bought it with the X-E2 it was supposed to just get me started until I could afford some primes. You couldn't pry it away from me now, just so convenient. The only primes I have bought are the 27 and the 56.  I love the 27, makes such a compact outfit and takes great pictures. I find that the 27 focal length really suits my shooting style.

[lorenzolessi]

Don't forget you could sell all 3 of your lenses and get the 16-55 and have all 3 focal lengths you want have weather sealing and never need to change lenses. I have the 23, and 56 as well but have only reached for the 56mm for portraits. Yes you are carrying the camera with a large lens but the combo still fits in a small camera bag and your covered. I find the image quality on the 16-55 to easily rival my primes. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents out their. Good luck finding what's right for you.

 

Thanks Michael... I think the 16-55 can match primes, but not the size. I know obviously that I can't have the versatility of the zoom with the primes, but with them you have already an idea of what are you going to have in the frame when you bring the camera to the eye, so you can concentrate on composition and moment.

It's an intriguing challenge, like dealing with the poor battery life... ;-)

 

 

For me portability is one of the reasons I bought mirrorless. For some it's more important than others. Have you thought of getting the 27mm? On the X-E2 it's as big and a bit lighter than any x100 camera. I don't know where you're from but there are some cashbacks going on... That'd give you portability for the days you don't want carry those big and heavy primes around.

 

If you don't need weather sealing and the f/1.4 I'd keep the 14mm. It's an awesome lens, super sharp, light and you have that bit extra wide angle. Personally I'd miss that on the 16mm (and keeping a lens is cheaper than selling and buying).

 

And I didn't read why you dislike the 18-55. It's great. But if you want more bokeh you could buy the 35mm. 

 

Edit: or do what Michaelortiz says. You could add the 27 for portability and you're good to go.

 

 

Thanks Sluw... Even for me portability is very important, but not at all costs. I find more interesting the 18mm as focal length and the size and weight are more or less comparable. I'm from Italy and there are rebates at the time... it's not such a deal if you buy only one or two lenses, anyway.

I really like the 14mm, but the 90% of the latest shots seemed to me too wide... it's a very very good lens and it's light. I think it's more suitable for landscape work, and i'm not interested in doing it with the x-e2; with people in the frame things are getting different if you put'em too far from the center.

The 18-55... it's a miracle lens for the cost. I used it most of the times at 23mm, than i found a used 23mm, and the difference is visible. Sometimes 18mm served me very well, but if most of my shots are with these 2 focal lengths on the zoom i can have more quality with the primes. 

 

 

 

Your setup looks fine, to me. If you really value compactness, get a used X100-something, an even smaller P&S, or a phone with a good camera.

 

The 16 has more glass than you need for indoor, or close outdoor, shooting unless you like a lot of subject-islolation. The 16 is for low light, wide FoV.

The 10-24 is handy for architectural work but is relatively bulky.

The 16-55 is larger and does not have the OIS of the 18-55.

 

14 does great for FoV and I stop it down as it is, turning up the camera's ISO, instead.

23 does great for low light shots and is between wide FoV and portrait lens options where traditional 35 mm has always been.

18-55 is great for OIS in a relatively fast and compact zoom

If you know you are going to have a lot of light and can handle the added bulk, the 18-135 is all right. It is smaller than "pro" zooms.

 

Thanks bhu... i agree, x100 series are appealing cameras to me... i use the phone, but only jpeg output (and a small sensor) limits image quality for some uses.

 

You're right, 16 has a lot of glass that i don't need. i think i'll wait for something like 16 f/2.8 or f/2, if ever there will be.

The 10-24 seems great, but not for hand shooting or small cameras.

I find (but i'm not so original) that with the 23mm i have one of the most natural field of view for my eye and i really enjoy the prime... apart from the size.

Most of my photos are taken in good light, but low light sometimes is fascinating and f/2 ora f/2.8 is something i look for (even considering the damn good high iso), the focal length over 55-56 probably not.

[lorenzolessi]

I've often thought that a great compact set up would be the X-E2 with the 18, 27, and 35f2 when available. That combination is not very wide, not very long or very fast, but you could sure do a lot with it. I have the 18-55 zoom which is way better than any kit zoom has a right to be. When I bought it with the X-E2 it was supposed to just get me started until I could afford some primes. You couldn't pry it away from me now, just so convenient. The only primes I have bought are the 27 and the 56.  I love the 27, makes such a compact outfit and takes great pictures. I find that the 27 focal length really suits my shooting style.

 

Thanks Rod... as i wrote 27 is very interesting. I don't think can substitute the 23 as focal length, but indeed it's a great combination of compactness and quality.

56 is a magical lens, but it's not in my chords (nor in my wallet...) ;-)

the 35 f/2 is potentially very good, the 1,4 it is for sure.

[citral]

Ditch the 18-55 for the 35 and thank me later. You might not use the 23 that much anymore tho... Not that many scenarios it'd be a better choice and it's that much bulkier and heavier.

 

Xf 35mm f/1.4, believe me probably the best mirrorless lens ever (IQ, size, weight and character wise, not AF)

[lorenzolessi]

Ditch the 18-55 for the 35 and thank me later. You might not use the 23 that much anymore tho... Not that many scenarios it'd be a better choice and it's that much bulkier and heavier.

 

Xf 35mm f/1.4, believe me probably the best mirrorless lens ever (IQ, size, weight and character wise, not AF)

Thanks citral... i've used sometimes the 35 and shoot even some decent pictures in my opinion (like this: https://flic.kr/p/q7i7XX or this: https://flic.kr/p/pa7JZw) but since i own the two primes for canon i know how many times i'm going to use it over the 23, so it's my third choice. for the size, you're right. At the time the zoom is a very good substitute of 35 and 18 for me, but i was thinking if i can trade off some versatility for fast and compact lenses... preferring the wide angles.

[citral]

Mate no, the 18-55 is OK replacing the 18 but not the 35. I've been shooting the whole morning the family in an OK lit church turned into a breakfast place, and the 18-55 at 35 and f/3.6 is not anywhere close to the 35 at f/2. Mind you, it's not close for landscapes either. I'd say it's good enough for architecture but that's about it.

 

Of course the 23 would have done as well, but the 35 is just better for portraits, and for wider shots it's only 1-2 steps back compared to the 23 and you don't have that much background to worry about in your frame so it's easier to compose.

 

That's just my opinion, more food for thought not evangelical speech

[lorenzolessi]

Mate no, the 18-55 is OK replacing the 18 but not the 35. I've been shooting the whole morning the family in an OK lit church turned into a breakfast place, and the 18-55 at 35 and f/3.6 is not anywhere close to the 35 at f/2. Mind you, it's not close for landscapes either. I'd say it's good enough for architecture but that's about it.

Of course the 23 would have done as well, but the 35 is just better for portraits, and for wider shots it's only 1-2 steps back compared to the 23 and you don't have that much background to worry about in your frame so it's easier to compose.

That's just my opinion, more food for thought not evangelical speech

Yes, you're right... The 35 is much better than the zoom, and I like very much the lens, but not the focal length.

It will be part of my "dream triplet" with two ipotetical 16 f/2.8 (even bigger than the 18) and 23 f/2 (maybe similar to the one you find on the x100 series).

For this reason (and since i can't see these lenses coming in the next future) i thought at the option to take an x100s and a 35 selling 23 an 18-55. At the wide end the 14 would be just fine, but maybe even the 18.

Of course we're discussing opinions here and I thank you for the answer, citral.

[Luke Johnston]

Some of the points made by the OP trouble me also. I have intended to replace my 18mm with 16mm since it appeared on the roadmap.

 

I already have the 18mm. It and the 35mm are my most used lenses (I have the 18, 27, 35 & 56). While the 18mm's corner sharpness is inadequate for landscape/architecture and it's distortion is inadequate for architecture, one of the things I like about the xf18 is f/2 provides enough light to document debauchery at parties or out on the town (and the lens is small and unobtrusive enough for this purpose).

Now the specs of the 16mm are out, I wonder whether I would carry the 16mm in the same situations as I do the 18mm. If I did, I would gain a faster auto focus, a handy focus clutch and the ability to crop from 16 to 18mm at f/2-2.8 with no perceivable difference in sharpness given the much higher resolution of the lens. Alternatively, I buy the 14mm and keep the 18mm.

 

However, I don't think I would ever carry more than one wide angle prime when far away from home.

[lorenzolessi]

Some of the points made by the OP trouble me also. I have intended to replace my 18mm with 16mm since it appeared on the roadmap.

 

I already have the 18mm. It and the 35mm are my most used lenses (I have the 18, 27, 35 & 56). While the 18mm's corner sharpness is inadequate for landscape/architecture and it's distortion is inadequate for architecture, one of the things I like about the xf18 is f/2 provides enough light to document debauchery at parties or out on the town (and the lens is small and unobtrusive enough for this purpose).

 

Now the specs of the 16mm are out, I wonder whether I would carry the 16mm in the same situations as I do the 18mm. If I did, I would gain a faster auto focus, a handy focus clutch and the ability to crop from 16 to 18mm at f/2-2.8 with no perceivable difference in sharpness given the much higher resolution of the lens. Alternatively, I buy the 14mm and keep the 18mm.

 

However, I don't think I would ever carry more than one wide angle prime when far away from home.

 

Thanks Luke… indeed the 18 wasn't conceived with absolute quality in mind, even if there are worst lenses… for landscape and architecture the 14 and the 10-24 (or even the 16-55) are hard to beat. The 18 is a classic focal length, fast and portable, suited for reportage or street photography. The 16 is oriented towards these two kind of photography, too… if you have to stop it down a lot, then the 1.4 makes not much sense. It's larger than the 23 but the quality is definitely there. Unfortunately absolute quality and portability do not correlate very well, hence the title of my post. If you do not care too much size and weight i believe that an x-t1 with 16/23/35 is an excellent package for a lot of photographic situations ... and, in this case, if I had to pick only one wide angle I would choose 16mm... but this is true for me. If you want a good compromise between quality and portability and 14 and is not too wide for you, I would definitely recommend it.

[citral]

I've received the 18 today, and for what I do it's fine. I want to be able to pack my stuff in a small holster, like next week when traveling by plane with a small luggage, the 18+35 combo is about the same space and weight than the 18-55 (maybe a bit more, but then always less on the camera and almost nothing in the bag).

 

But what is interesting to me is really documenting stuff, funny situations, if I shoot a building I will likely include people shooting the building in my frame so absolute corners sharpness or distortion is not of real importance to me. However, a pleasing out of focus rendering is, and I'm in love with the 35 for that.

 

If you're out to make "serious" architecture shots the 14 or 16 probably makes more sense, but then if that's what you're doing equipment probably matters more than if you're into documentary and you should accept the weight and space penalty.

 

So, still life -> boring anyway, so you might as well take the best glass to at least get incredible detail etc. so people will look at the picture for more than 10 seconds before moving on

 

People, documentary -> the interest being very far away from corners sharpness, you might as well use something unobtrusive and easy to carry absolutely everywhere you go.

 

If you like to shoot both, decide which you like most, equip accordingly and accept the tradeoff for your secondary shots (I'm not really worried if I shoot the Eiffel tower with the "bad" 18. There are like 2 millions pictures of it on flickr)

 

Or if you really can't decide buy all and take with you what suits your daily activity...