What lens next? Fuji specific question. Need help.

SquarePeg · Oct 31, 2017

So... posted this on a fuji discussion forum but wanted to also get some feedback from the Fuji shooters here. It's a copy/paste from there so may have info that you all already know:

I switched from Nikon to Fuji in April of this year. I got the X-T2 with 18-55 f/2.8-4 kit lens. I subsequently picked up a used 60mm f/2.4 macro and a used 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7. I love both the 60mm and 50-230 (a hidden gem, IMO, and it fits in my jacket pocket) but neither are fast. I don't use the 18-55 all that much - it's just not an exciting range for me. I much prefer focal lengths above 50mm but recognize the need for something wide. I've tried forcing myself to use the 18-55 but other than the occasional landscape, I just can't get into it.

I want to add one or two more lenses to my kit and sell the 18-55. I'm completely undecided on what to do next. I thought I wanted the 80mm but the price and the weird cats eye bokeh make me uncertain. The other issue is the weight! The 90 looks awesome and the price is so much more palatable but I don't have the best technique so the lack of OIS could be an issue and no macro. The 50-140 is intriguing for it's versatility and I have a friend that thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread... I literally change my mind several times a day, I'll probably change it in the next paragraph! So frustrating.

I mostly shoot flowers, vacation/family photos and landscapes but have lately gotten interested in portraiture as art. I'm not a pro and have no professional aspirations so none of that is a consideration. It's worth noting that I originally switched from Nikon to get a smaller and lighter kit for travel. I think I have that with the X-T2, 18-55 and 50-230 but am unhappy with the 18-55 plus need to add a portrait lens.

I am about to finalize the sale of my last Nikon lens and I'm also planning on selling the 18-55. I'll have about $2K to spend on whatever I decide. It's definitely ok if I spend less! Except for the 80mm I'll be buying used if I can.

Do I get the 50-140 for it's range? I already have those focal lengths covered and it's a big lens but so versatile and I've seen some really beautiful portraits taken with it.

The 90mm for it's sharpness and gorgeous bokeh for portraits plus the 16 f/1.4, 23 f/2 or 35 f/1.4 ?

The 80mm for it's macro capability, portrait option and sharpness? and 27 or 35 pancake to make a lighter kit? That 80 is huge.

Sorry for such a long post and many thanks if you've read the whole thing. Just getting this post organized and writing it out helped me narrow down my options and I'm already feeling much less scattered about it. Thanks in advance for any input/feedback you care to provide! Definitely open to other suggestions than those I have outlined.

Gary A. · Oct 31, 2017

Don't get rid of the 18-55, it is great as a travel lens.

Gary A. · Oct 31, 2017

I have the 23mm f/2. It is very small and a great performer. Primes work differently than zooms. But you need a lot of them to cover zoom ranges. My problem with zooms is that at different focal lengths, zooms deliver different levels of performance. I am slowly moving to primes ... but for action ... a fast zoom is hard to beat. But if you go primes you may desire to shoot with two bodies.

Gary A. · Oct 31, 2017

PS- I love my 50-140. Typically, I only use two focal lengths on zooms, either racked completely in, or racked completely out. The 90mm is a sweet for portraits, but many may feel a tad long.

Gary A. · Oct 31, 2017

PPS- I know you have an aversion to wide. The best way to overcome your aversion to to shoot wide. The best way to shoot wide is to get a wide angle. If you don't have a wide angle ... you'll never shoot wide. :cool-48:

Get a wide and force yourself to use it. Glue it to your camera and make yourself shoot it. The thing with all lenses is to fill the frame. With wides, it means you have to get closer to your subjects ... which means you can no longer hide behind the camera. A wide angle tells a different story than a telephoto ... one isn't better than the other ... just different.

jcdeboever · Oct 31, 2017

The 50-140 is a splendid portrait lens with excellent OIS but it is heavy. I would say the 56mm for it's size and weight but it doesn't have OIS. However, the 56 is so fast, OIS shouldn't be an issue. The best lens Fuji makes is the 16mm, it's really a great lens for street and landscape. Truly, the best glass I've ever used.

pixmedic · Oct 31, 2017

its hard to beat the versatility of the 50-140, plus its a fast f2.8 lens with stabilization which gives you a lot of leeway in low light.
ive been putting off buying one for a number of reasons, but its definitely next on my list.
when we had nikon, almost all of our portrait work was either with the 85mm or the 70-200.

the 18-55 f2.8-4 is a typically underappreciated gem of a lens. i would never sell mine.

jcdeboever · Oct 31, 2017

The 50-140 is a splendid portrait lens with excellent OIS but it is heavy. I would say the 56mm for it's size and weight but it doesn't have OIS. However, the 56 is so fast, OIS shouldn't be an issue. The best lens Fuji makes is the 16mm, it's really a great lens for street and landscape. Truly, the best glass I've ever used.

SquarePeg · Oct 31, 2017

Weird double post @jcdeboever 2 hours later, lol.

jcdeboever · Oct 31, 2017

pixmedic said:
its hard to beat the versatility of the 50-140, plus its a fast f2.8 lens with stabilization which gives you a lot of leeway in low light.
ive been putting off buying one for a number of reasons, but its definitely next on my list.
when we had nikon, almost all of our portrait work was either with the 85mm or the 70-200.

the 18-55 f2.8-4 is a typically underappreciated gem of a lens. i would never sell mine.

Me neither. It is very useful. The neat thing about the 50-140 is in the rendering. It is unique.

The 16mm 1.4 is amazing. If I had a monochrome X camera, the 16 would always be on it.

jcdeboever · Oct 31, 2017

SquarePeg said:
Weird double post @jcdeboever 2 hours later, lol.

I know, right? [/U]

SquarePeg · Dec 20, 2017

So after months of waffling around about this, I completely changed my plans about what I need and have decided to keep things small and light - which is why I switched to Fuji to begin with. I just ordered both the 35mm and 23mm f2 lenses. Not sure if I'll end up keeping them both or not. If I like them, I may still get rid of the 18-55... I just don't love it although there is nothing wrong with it. After toying with the idea of getting a Nikon to Fuji X adapter, I'm going to resume trying to sell the Nikon 105 and will then may still pick up the 90mm if/when the time comes.

cgw · Dec 21, 2017

The 35/2WR is very sweet. I passed on the 23/2 WR since I've got an X100T. Looking forward to getting the 50/2 WR over the holidays.Recently picked up a pretty X-T1 Graphite+grip that are drawing me ever deeper into Fuji territory. The f2 "Fujicrons" are killer.

Gary A. · Dec 21, 2017

Get 'em all!!!!!!

jcdeboever · Dec 21, 2017

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