Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fuji' started by tkao2025, Jun 4, 2015.
My problem is, which two?
It's easy for me. Just depends on what my shooting is. Primes would be 16/56, zooms 16-55/50-140.
After much research and internal debate, I've decided on my compact 2-lens solution. I went old school again, purchasing a lightly used XF 60mm f2.4 Macro for 1/2 the cost of a new one. I've spent a lot of time reading about the lens and viewing sample images. It may seem counter-intuitive to have two 1st-gen non-WR lenses on the X-T1, but I think the 18mm/60mm combo will fit my needs well. A small, light combination with what I think is excellent IQ, carried in a small bag hung on the handlebars of my bike. Only catch is I have to wait 3-4 weeks for the lens to arrive from Thailand.
If you don't depend on blazing AF speed, those two lenses do really well. And they're cheap, used, because of the first sentence. Makes total sense.
The 18mm has been an excellent combination with the X-T1. I expect the 60 will, also.
If I could only have only two primes, I'd stay on the wide side: The 14mm f/2.8 and the 23mm f/2.0 WR. Two zooms? The 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 and the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8. Fortunately for me, I don't have to limit myself to only two.
On a separate note, the longest prime that I currently own is the 60mm f/2.4 macro. It's the closest thing to a portrait lens that I have for Fuji. I'd love to have the original 56mm f/1.2 or the 90mm f/2.0 WR. But, alas, my days of buying $1000 lenses are over.
I was playing around on camerasize.com, with 3 simulations of my X-T1. The 18mm and 60mm both are great fits for the camera. On the 3rd camera I was modeling various other lenses. The next two lenses in FL after the 60 are the 90 and 18-135. Both are significant jumps from the 60 in length, weight, and cost. More power to you folks that own them and use them, but I've tried hiking with long, heavy lenses. Didn't last but a few hikes before I tired of the bulk. I was never able to get any good wildlife pics, anyway. Light and compact for me.
90 is no heavier and is slightly shorter than a 55-200. That plus an 18-55 in a Lowepro holster buys a lot of capability in a very portable load.
I will second the 18-55/55-200 pair as a great lighter weight combo which covers a lot of range.
I used to have the 18-55. It was nice, but I decided primes suited me more for my woodland adventures. I realize I'm giving up reach by limiting myself to 60mm max, but my priority these days is light and packable on a bicycle. I've tried many different carrying solutions when I ride, and the one I like best is just a small padded bag strapped to the handlebar.
That is one of the things I love about Fuji gear. The really is nothing bad in the entire lineup. Regardless of what one's needs are for their shooting.
A word for the 50-230... I had the 55-200 and sold it in favour of the 100-400. That is one heavy lens, however, and something of a specialist tool. I only carry it with intent, and never when travelling. Enter the 50-230. Light as a feather and a remarkably good performer.
Surrey CC vs Derbyshire CC Royal London One Day Cup 16 Ansari par Lightmancer, on ipernity
Yup. I gave my Gen 1 XC 16-50 and 50-230 to my nephew along with my rarely used X-A1 body. That's because I also have the XF 18-55 and 55-200. But make no mistake: Those XC zooms are just fine.
Compared to the XF's, you lose the aperture ring and a stop of exposure. Optically, they're as solid as can be. And, since you'll use the 50-230 outdoors anyway, the slightly slower speed isn't really an issue. And the XC's weigh less than the XF's. I wouldn't hesitate to buy them again, if necessary.
Yup. As long as you've got decent light, the 50-230 is almost (almost) preferable for most people vs the 55-200 or 100-400, in that it's SO LIGHT and small, by comparison. I have a lens-only bag, a sort of stiff padded sleeve with a circular zip top, and a flap on the back for running a strap through. Sometimes I'll toss the 50-230 into that and either affix it to my bike's handlebars, or on a backpack strap, or on the camera strap itself.
When you think about it, if you're pretty half-arsed about whether or not you're even going to USE a long lens like that on a given trip, then opting to bring along the light plastic version fits the bill. If long lenses are paying your bills, then by all means go Big and Expensive.
The 50-230mm is my only zoom. Just don't like zooms and tele that much, but this one, I only bought because it was cheap, is a keeper . . . .
Pilgrims in Varanasi by Plooifiets, on Flickr
As Bob Newhart famously said . . . . "Stop it!". You guys are a bad influence. Must. Resist. 50-230.
Kyle, you mention strapping a bag to your handlebars. I've been just using velcro wraps to hold my camera bag to the bars, but I decided to go a bit upmarket and just ordered a KlickFix system to convert one of my bags. The handlebar mount was easy to find, but I searched several days before finally finding a vendor in the US who had the spare mounting plates for the bag.
Back to the regularly scheduled thread.
I actually do own one zoom, a Vivitar 70-150 f/3.8 in PK mount. I don't carry it on my bike or most hikes, due to its weight. Being mainly glass and steel, I imagine it is considerably heavier than the 50-230. I mostly use it for pics around the local airport and the occasional short nature walk. Maybe some day I'll replace it with the 50-230, but not any time soon.
Here's how cheaply a brand-new 50-230 can be had for right now...
NEW! FUJIFILM XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS II Lens (Black) For X-Series, Fujinon 74101023329 | eBay
Mine was technically used, but might as well have been new, Japan seller on ebay, $180.