What lens next? Fuji specific question. Need help.

[SquarePeg]

I buy by focal range, trying not to overlap. Having said that, primes are pretty special in the micro contrast area so they have specific uses for me. My lineup, is the 16, 23, 18-55, 60, 50-140, 55-200, 100-400. The 16mm is by far the best of the bunch in terms of micro contrast and image rendition. My next lens is going to probably be the 80mm macro, what a fantastic lens from what I can see, it also accepts the 1.4 TC which is a bonus. It may be the finest "current" macro lens out there and it's not even close.

I rented the 35 f/2 and it is fantastic as is the 23 f/2. Very different in the viewfinder but super high end image rendition and micro contrast. Not to mention that the color rendition is spectacular. Have no clue on the 90 but the images I see are typical Fuji juicyness.

Sent from my [device_name] using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

I thought you had the 90. It wasn't you that was telling me how great it is? Damn, I don't know who it was then.

 

[jcdeboever]

I buy by focal range, trying not to overlap. Having said that, primes are pretty special in the micro contrast area so they have specific uses for me. My lineup, is the 16, 23, 18-55, 60, 50-140, 55-200, 100-400. The 16mm is by far the best of the bunch in terms of micro contrast and image rendition. My next lens is going to probably be the 80mm macro, what a fantastic lens from what I can see, it also accepts the 1.4 TC which is a bonus. It may be the finest "current" macro lens out there and it's not even close.

I rented the 35 f/2 and it is fantastic as is the 23 f/2. Very different in the viewfinder but super high end image rendition and micro contrast. Not to mention that the color rendition is spectacular. Have no clue on the 90 but the images I see are typical Fuji juicyness.

Sent from my [device_name] using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

I thought you had the 90. It wasn't you that was telling me how great it is? Damn, I don't know who it was then.

I may have told you it was great based on Flickr and x photographers website. I seen a real thorough review on it as well. If that is a focal length you require, go for it. I am very pleased with my 50-140 for all intensive purposes so I won't be purchasing a 90. The 80 would work for me as well for portraits, you just need to stop it down to prevent the swirling bokeh but I probably wouldn't use it for that anyway.

 

[Gary A.]

I have a 90mm.

 

[SquarePeg]

I have a 90mm.

AHA!!!!

 

[SquarePeg]

And so it begins... I'm returning the 23 f/2. I used it almost exclusively for a week - Christmas Day photos, landscapes, candids, low light, good light, food, flowers, faces... surprisingly to me, I prefer the 18-55. I really didn't feel there was anything I got with the 23 f2 that I can't get with the kit zoom. So now on to the next lens - we'll see how I like the 35 f/2 and make a decision on that after this week.

 

[JonA_CT]

And so it begins... I'm returning the 23 f/2. I used it almost exclusively for a week - Christmas Day photos, landscapes, candids, low light, good light, food, flowers, faces... surprisingly to me, I prefer the 18-55. I really didn't feel there was anything I got with the 23 f2 that I can't get with the kit zoom. So now on to the next lens - we'll see how I like the 35 f/2 and make a decision on that after this week.

I'm not super surprised. If the sharpness is similar, most people don't need the shorter focal lengths to be super fast, because you're going to struggle to throw backgrounds OOF regardless (especially on that sized sensor). The extra stop probably doesn't make that big of a difference. If you were doing astrophotography or something, maybe it'd be worth it.

 

[SquarePeg]

And so it begins... I'm returning the 23 f/2. I used it almost exclusively for a week - Christmas Day photos, landscapes, candids, low light, good light, food, flowers, faces... surprisingly to me, I prefer the 18-55. I really didn't feel there was anything I got with the 23 f2 that I can't get with the kit zoom. So now on to the next lens - we'll see how I like the 35 f/2 and make a decision on that after this week.

I'm not super surprised. If the sharpness is similar, most people don't need the shorter focal lengths to be super fast, because you're going to struggle to throw backgrounds OOF regardless (especially on that sized sensor). The extra stop probably doesn't make that big of a difference. If you were doing astrophotography or something, maybe it'd be worth it.

I was thinking something smaller sized than the kit would be good to have for when I'm out and about. I may grab one of the pancake lenses instead for when I just want to throw the xt2 in my purse and head out the door. I made the mistake with Nikon in keeping lenses that I bought and didn't love and ended up with some that I almost never used and I don't want to end up with that again. I guess I don't really NEED anything right now with the 18-55 and 50-230 covering most of what I shoot and the 60mm macro I just love for flowers... I'll save up and add either the 90 or the 80 for portraits and maybe get the Rokinon fisheye for fun at some point.

 

[Derrel]

And so it begins... I'm returning the 23 f/2. I used it almost exclusively for a week - Christmas Day photos, landscapes, candids, low light, good light, food, flowers, faces... surprisingly to me, I prefer the 18-55. I really didn't feel there was anything I got with the 23 f2 that I can't get with the kit zoom. So now on to the next lens - we'll see how I like the 35 f/2 and make a decision on that after this week.

I'm not too surprised to read this, since that's been my own, personal experience with short prime lenses that are near the "wide end" of modern zoom lenses...the focal length flexibility of the zoom lens is really handy, and the wider-angle,short focal length lenses are always "fixed", and indoors and at closer ranges (20 meters or less) focal length flexibility is often more-critical than ultimate sharpness.

My favorite prime lenses have all been telephotos...

And even though I own a bunch of wide-angle primes, I most-often reach for a 28-80mm inexpensive zoom lens, even on 24- and 36-MP cameras...I want the framing and the focal lengths to be just right..."ultimate sharpness" is typically not my most important criterion in what lens is used to shoot a photo.

 

[SquarePeg]

And so it begins... I'm returning the 23 f/2. I used it almost exclusively for a week - Christmas Day photos, landscapes, candids, low light, good light, food, flowers, faces... surprisingly to me, I prefer the 18-55. I really didn't feel there was anything I got with the 23 f2 that I can't get with the kit zoom. So now on to the next lens - we'll see how I like the 35 f/2 and make a decision on that after this week.

I'm not too surprised to read this, since that's been my own, personal experience with short prime lenses that are near the "wide end" of modern zoom lenses...the focal length flexibility of the zoom lens is really handy, and the wider-angle,short focal length lenses are always "fixed", and indoors and at closer ranges (20 meters or less) focal length flexibility is often more-critical than ultimate sharpness.

My favorite prime lenses have all been telephotos...

And even though I own a bunch of wide-angle primes, I most-often reach for a 28-80mm inexpensive zoom lens, even on 24- and 36-MP cameras...I want the framing and the focal lengths to be just right..."ultimate sharpness" is typically not my most important criterion in what lens is used to shoot a photo.

I'm not sure what I was thinking, lol. I rarely like any image I shoot at less than 50mm and I know that. I guess I was hoping the prime would work some magic and make me like shooting "wide" even though 23 isn't really wide to anyone but me.

 

[cgw]

Have had the 50/2 WR for a couple of days and love it: fast AF, sharp, truly nice bokeh. The 75mm equivalent works.

 

[SquarePeg]

Have had the 50/2 WR for a couple of days and love it: fast AF, sharp, truly nice bokeh. The 75mm equivalent works.

Interesting. I do miss my Nikon 50 1.8 sometines. But I like the 60mm macro and don’t want to repeat too close to that. I’ve got the 35mm on the xt2 and will try to use it a lot over the next week then I have to decide...

Anyone rocking the Rockinon 85mm 1.4? I know it’s MF so not sure if it’s my thing but for that price it’s tempting and has some nice reviews. I may try to use only MF for a portrait session with my daughter to see how I do.

 

[Gary A.]

For Princeses' sports, I recommend the 50-140 w/a 2x teleconverter. Granted the 50-230 is sharp and nice to toss in your purse, but the 50-140 is for the times when you get serious and need the f/2.8.

But the 50-140 f/2.8 is a 'real' lens for 'real' photography.

Seriously, the f/2.8 makes a world of difference image wise and weight/size wise. The lens is not something trivial, but for my photos well worth the additional PITA.

 

[SquarePeg]

For Princeses' sports, I recommend the 50-140 w/a 2x teleconverter. Granted the 50-230 is sharp and nice to toss in your purse, but the 50-140 is for the times when you get serious and need the f/2.8.

But the 50-140 f/2.8 is a 'real' lens for 'real' photography.

Seriously, the f/2.8 makes a world of difference image wise and weight/size wise. The lens is not something trivial, but for my photos well worth the additional PITA.

That does seem like a great lens but my purpose in switching to Fuji was to lighten the load and I’m trying to stay true to that. As for the sports photos, lately she’s only playing softball which is outdoors during the day or under the lights at night so the light has not an issue there and the 2.8 not really necessary. I’m just in this for me/for fun so no need to get serious!

 

[cgw]

Have had the 50/2 WR for a couple of days and love it: fast AF, sharp, truly nice bokeh. The 75mm equivalent works.

Interesting. I do miss my Nikon 50 1.8 sometines. But I like the 60mm macro and don’t want to repeat too close to that. I’ve got the 35mm on the xt2 and will try to use it a lot over the next week then I have to decide...

Anyone rocking the Rockinon 85mm 1.4? I know it’s MF so not sure if it’s my thing but for that price it’s tempting and has some nice reviews. I may try to use only MF for a portrait session with my daughter to see how I do.

Seriously, I think the relatively affordable f2 "Fujicrons" are giant killers. The 50mm equiv. 35/2 is like a dream "nifty 50." I'll shoot more with the 50/2 once the current polar weather recedes a bit but so far I'm smitten. I'm quickly being convinced these new f2 primes are the lenses for Fuji's ILCs. Their big-ass zooms overwhelm those bodies and pretty much put me back to lugging the same tonnage and bulk of a Nikon DSLR.

I'm not totally sold on fast Korean glass. Budget-pricing aside, they're a bit cludgy and sort of "OK+" optically--something most people rationalize/explain away in light of the sticker price. Shot a Nikon version and wasn't totally flattened by the IQ. YMMV, as usual.

 

[SquarePeg]

I think the 35mm f/2 might be for me. It’s small and super light and I love the way it renders the backgrounds even stopped down a bit to. f/4.5

These first 2 were converted in camera from raw with some minor tweaks to exposure. The portrait was taken at f/2.8 and I did a quick edit in Affinity on my iPad.