Torn on making my setup of lenses

[bhedges1987]

I am a landscape, wildlife (elk, moose etc), and astro guy.  I usually take a few trips to the mountains every year and kind of want to round of what I like doing.

 

The 18-55 is great, it gets me decent wide angle, but lacks some on any animal that is further than 30 yards away.  It's also just so-so for astro.

 

I am debating on the 16mm 1.4 - this could cover astro (Though some say it's not very great). I also hear the 16mm required some effort to gain focus at infinity.   I am no professional, but would welcome a good upgrade from the 18-55 2.8. The 16mm would also probably be my go-to for hiking and getting those vista and flower pics.

 

Also debating getting the samyang 12mm WITH the xf 55-200.  This would cover astro (better so I hear than the 16mm1.4). However I don't like the fact I would have to be going manual when I want my wide angle and flower shots, so there lies that downfall.  The 55-200 - I know most people say it's not good for wild life, but I mean it's gotta give me more range than my 18-55 at the moment.  Normally in the mountains, wildlife is around 30-60 yards away.  

 

I know the 100-400 is obviously what I want for wildlife, but that's just out of the question for now.

 

Basically I guess I'm kind of asking if the 55-200 is decent for the type of wildlife shooting I do, if it's much of an improvement over my kit lens.  Also asking if it's worth it to get the 16mm for my wide angle and vista shots and gaining some astro ability, over sticking with my 18-55 for landscapes and gaining the samyang for astro.

 

Any input for those that have used any of the above are greatly appreciated.  I hope I covered most of what I shoot and what my main focus is.

[Phil]

What about the 50-230mm? It's nothing special compared to the XF lenses but it's not bad (on par with the Canon/Nikon kit zooms). 

[Lumens]

You're talking covering everything from wide-angle to telephoto.  In my opinion the easiest way to do that is with zooms.

 

Ultimate setup -> 8-16 f2.8, 16-55 f2.8, 55-140 f.28, & 100-400 (My setup will look like this when I hit the Lottery )

Most affordable/efficient -> 10-24, 18-55, 55-200, & 100-400 (My current setup) 

 

Prime system -> 16 f1.4 (maybe 14 & 23 here), 35 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 80 Macro or 90 f.2, & 100-400

Alternate Prime -> 23, 35, 50, 90 all f.2 with 100-400

 

Bottom line covering that wide a range is expensive,  best option is make a plan and stick with it.  So much in the bank a month until the finances (and sale price) is there.

[bhedges1987]

Yeah I understand I"m wanting to cover a lot of things.  

 

I haven't looked much into the 50-230, but I will.

 

Is the 16mm 1.4 worth the price to upgrade over the 18-55 for the wide angle vista and close flower w/ mountain background shots?  I guess this is my main question.  If the IQ isn't that much of an upgrade, I think I would lean more to going the samyang with the / 55-200 route.

[quincy]

If you are shooting big animals and you know what you do, the 55-200 might be the perfect lens for you if you don't want to buy the 100-400, which is also much heavier. My 55-200 is almost as sharp as my 80 macro, and definitely sharper than my 100-400. I like the oof-rendering, you can use it wide open at the long end with no drawbacks, it is small and lightweight, so what's not to like about it.

 

On the wide end, however, i think you need to buy both. The 16 is really bad for astro, but nearly perfect for everything else you want. The close focusing capability is great for environmental flower shots. The 12 is absolutely great for astro, (and not bad in all other disciplines), but it is so wide, it will distort your image as soon as the horizon is not in the center of your frame.

 

If you have specific questions, I think i might have all the lenses you are considering.

[bhedges1987]

Thanks for the reply.  I was able to snag a used rokinon 12mm for pretty cheap.  So for now I will go that route and pick up a 55-200 and see how things go.  Eventually I will want that 16mm as it looks so nice.  

[lleo]

Hedges, the 55-200 is a great lens. Unfortunately the longest Fuji one is the 100-400 which is huge. It's stabilized but probably usable only on a tripod to shoot wildlife. The 55-200 is much more handy. The 50-230 is also good even not as much as 55-200. Or you have the 50-140 that with a 2x converter becomes a 280. Though they are on a complete different price level.

Here's a crop of a shot I took with the 55-200, a seagull flying. He was in the distance. Sorry for the dimensions, I didn't have the time to make it bigger for the forum.

About the wide angle, I owned the Samyang 12 and it's a fantastic lens, its three dimensionality is awesome. Actually I own the Fuji 14 F/2,8 another great lens that also works great for astro.

[tractorboyx]

I have used the 55-200, and it is a great lens, and would complement your 18-55 very well.

 

You mention the 16, but why not consider the 14, which is an amazing lens, as well as being noticeably

wider than the 18-55 you already have, and cheaper.