Help Getting my first Lenses

[Hamad502]

God I'm so lost, Someone give me recommendations on which one to pick. I tried my friend's tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-22 zooms lens on a canon and got me into photography so I bought an X-T3 body.

Overall I love taking close up pics most of them are in 200-270mm range specially because of the bokeh it gives. I believe getting a fast prime lens f/1.2-2 in the range of 50-90mm would be best suitable for me but I also want one that gives me a wider view like 18-23mm for everyday use and travel. Although 33-35mm seems like the best balance out there. On the other side I could get one of fuji's zoom lens like the 70-300mm for a really good offer too and continue from there.

Any tips would help

Thanks

[jwascher]

You have brought up several "wants" in a lens. You really need to figure out what kind of pictures you want to be able to take. For an everyday, travel lens I find the 18-135 to be great, not fast but a good all around travel lens. The 10-24 if good when you want wide angle in narrow streets or in other close quarters. The faster lens' are going to be a lot more expensive, and with OIS lens', do you really need the wider aperture? I have an 80mm macro lens that I find takes excellent portraits plus gives you the Macro feature. There are many YouTube videos that go thru the Fuji lens collection and talk about the pros and cons of each, the overlap of the various lens, etc. Good luck and happy shooting

[thelostkiwi]

Agree on the 18-135 it's a very good one lens fits all with a decent blend of focal length coverage, sharpness, cost and weight with the added benefit it's weather sealed. It's a bit slow at the long end but with OIS and high ISO it's fine for most things. 

You don't say what you shoot?

For myself I use vintage telephoto lenses from Minolta and Zeiss. Great lenses for not much money. Example: 75-200 f4.5 Minolta can be had for under £50 and is the same design as the equivalent Leica R (Leica and Minolta co-developed lenses and bodies for a while). A Zeiss 80-200 can be had for £100 -150 in Contax fitting. Adapters are £20-30. The only issue is you need to manually focus so not easy to use for sports or wildlife. 

[Astigmatism]

A few quick thoughts:

Overall, zooms tend to be heavier and bulkier and slower and costlier with poorer image quality than primes. You compromise on pretty much everything, just to get that adjustable focal length. But an adjustable focal length is a pretty huge and amazing feature for a lens. You might put some thought into your own thoughts on zoom versus prime. Many of us wind up with a few of each.

I also agree the 18-135 is very good, does almost everything you need a lens to do. If I can only bring one, this is the one.

I also agree the 80 Macro is good. The images are excellent for close up or distant shooting, and it offers about as much magnification as you can use handheld. If I can only bring two, this is the second one. There's a 30 Macro instead, which is a great deal smaller and lighter and easier to handle, if you prefer.

You can crop an image after shooting to approximate a longer narrower lens. But there's no way in the world to approximate a shorter wider lens. What didn't fit in the image will never get there after shooting. So, I think it is good to have a very wide lens in your kit. I have the 8 mm, which is VERY very wide. Kinda expensive though. But, still, picking something pretty dang wide as your widest lens is a good strategy. You can leave a big gap between your widest and second widest, and crop as needed, but you will be able to capture the subject.

[pw-pix]

Perhaps look for a secondhand XF 23mm F2 and a secondhand XF 56mm f1.2, use those for six months or so and see where you feel you are missing something.

The 23mm (35mm equivalent) is a popular general purpose lens and can be used successfully for most general photography.

The 56mm (85mm equivalent) is a popular short telephoto and portrait lens, giving shallow depth of field when used at wider apertures.

[SJW]

Just reading the great advice shared here. I would probably say that pw-pix resonates most with me for the size, quality and low light ability. I haven’t used the 70-300 as I have other needs, but if you watch Andy Mumford, one of the few YouTubers I watch, he seems to like it. Hope this helps. 

[Sleeping Dog]

The reason most kit lenses are in the 18 to 50/70mm range is that it covers most of the types of photographs that are taken. Until you figure what what type of pictures you most enjoy taking, wildlife, landscape, street, macro etc, you probably should look for something in the 18-70mm range. That focal length is flexible and usually not too large.

[Hamad502]

Hey everyone,

coming back with a feedback

I would like to thank you all for the invaluable advices yall have given me.

I've bought THE INFAMOUS 35mm 1.4 and the 70-300mm zoom lens, I've found that I loved using prime lenses much more than zoom as it has better image quality more overall usability for me.

but also the extra stuff on 70-300 I really loved too like weather sealing and image stabilization are pretty cool and could find a use some other days.

Prime is that way ❤️ 

Cheers

[SJW]

Enjoy Hamad502. Those are great lenses.