More travel lens advice...

[nibbler]

Hi all,

I am a frequent traveler for work and pleasure, and (while waiting for the new Fuji sensor) have decided to get the X-T10.

 

I don't really like zooms, but see their value so planning to get the two XC zooms as a kit to cover basic needs and allow longer reach e.g. for wildlife, plus they are dirt cheap and light.

 

For more serious stuff I am planning to get the 56, since the 90 is a bit too big. In addition the 35 and the 27 (small is beautiful). I have been considering a wide angle (14 or 16 or 10-24), but the XC zoom goes to 16 and I think five lenses is a good start (plus I'll add the MCEX-16 for macro).

 

I know the two 2.8 zooms are great also, but too big for a small system. In the future I may add a macro, wide angle and tele if Fuji decides to make small lenses.

 

The great thing about this system (16-50, 50-230, 27, 35, 56) is that it offers versatility and if I just want to go around with one lens, I have options. I also have an original X-100 but find it quite slow to use.

 

Question to the forum - does this work as a general purpose set up with some portrait, macro, wildlife added? It there a better 5 lens combo without adding too much bulk and weight?

 

Thanks!

[Larry Bolch]

At this point, there are Fujinons that cover all but the long telephoto segment and that will be answered next year with a 100-400mm zoom. Above all, they are all excellent. I went with primes just because it felt right to shoot primes on the X-Pro1. However, most of my shooting with the dSLR is with zooms. Really, it is a matter that only you can answer, and the answer will be right for you. 

[darknj]

Going XC line for the longer range zoom is a wise thing to do if you don't need the extra stops of lights.

 

The F2.8 zooms are great lenses, but as you said, it comes with a weight/size cost and the money cost is relatively high too.

 

As Larry said, I would wait a bit for that 100-400mm lens next year, it might be the single lens to cover up all your range needs and that frees up 4 slots for your primes.

 

All in all, I wouldn't ditch the 18-55 F2.4-4 that easily, it is still a very good and very versatile zoom, it would help you out from your 18 to 35 range. I would still get one of the F1.4 prime, just you have something to go for if the light drops down too much.

 

From your current line up and with the known previsions I would say something akin to: 27, 35, 18-55, 100-400 and one last free for whatever you want. The good thing about the 35mm is that you can do a bit of everything with it. It can serve as a perfectly fine portrait lens.

[Tom H.]

I travel a lot too, and I always use long telephoto range the least. In my eyes, the X100T is still the ultimate travel camera. But an X-T10 and the kit 18-55 and one fast prime (18, 35) would be a close second. I don't understand the need to always "have all ranges" covered. Simplify your kit while travelling, enjoy the trip, and the shots will follow. If you are a fan of really wide, the 10-24 would make a good kit with a 35 or 56 prime.

 

For wildlife, you'll pretty much want long and fast, because wildlife hides during the day and comes out at dusk and dawn, when slow telephoto zooms break down... Until the 100-400 comes out, there is not really any viable option for wildflife in my opinion.

[Naddan28]

I'm a bit confused, are you suggesting you'd carry all 5 lens in one go when travelling?  In which case I think the weight complaints about the 16-55mm and 50-140mm are somewhat of a mute point, as you'd cover virtually of the range above with two high quality lenses and only be losing a stop or so in the mid range and 75mm or so at the long end but also gaining weather sealing throughout.

 

My travel kits depend on where I am going etc but broadly:

• city break/weekend: XT1, 14mm, 35mm and 56mm
• serious photo holiday/landscape trip: XT1 + grip, 14mm, 16-55mm, 50-140mm and then maybe the upcoming longer lenses.

[Nero]

As a frequent traveler, I would try to find a way to fit the 10-24 in there. The 16-50 covers a good range, but the 27, 35, and 56 cover the upper end of it and the 10-24 would be a wonderful extension of the lower end. In my mind, I would probably cut the 56mm and the 16-50 for the 10-24, but that's just me. I don't use the 56mm focal length enough to justify spending that much on it when I have zooms that cover it. If it's a critical focal length for your style, then obviously go for it. Your description of yourself as a traveler made me think 10-24, because as someone who loves to travel that is one lens I would never leave without.

[gurkendoktor]

I can only suggest to use the 18-55. Best compromise on versatility, IQ, speed, and ease of operation.

 

My "full travel setup" is 12mm Samyang, XF18-55, and the XF35. When I have the possibility, I sometimes also use only the 18mm or only the 35mm (or I rediscover the 27), but depending on the way you travel and the people you're with, this could quickly be too limiting in some ways.

[zzra]

as stated above, only you can really know what to do since you know how you shoot best

 

I recently spent 10 days in Budapest and knew I would be walking a lot and I wanted to travel light.  I took my X-T1 with the 27mm and 56mm.  Didn't regret not having anything else.  Travel was easy and I was never bogged down no which lens to use.  I kept the 56 on most of the time and switched to 27 is I needed wider.  A lot of people would not think this sufficient, but it worked really well for me.  Point is, figure out what is really important to you and chose the appropriate lenses.