Future X-T2 owner searching for lenses suitable for 4K movie capture

xav8tor wrote:

Due to the disappointing 4K video features the new 5D MkIV, I too am making the switch to Fuji’s XT-2 from the Canon system, in which I have about 8,000 USD invested. My local camera shop has tentatively agreed to basically make a one to one swap, giving me a body, four lenses, and flash, plus a few other goodies. I shoot documentary/forensic images and video, the latter of which involves all sorts of types of photography. After two months of extensive research, I believe the X-T2 can meet my needs.

Me too - and I'm pondering for a full year!

As to your question regarding a video capable lens, I too have agonized over the choices. Again, after months of research, I’ve nailed at least three of my choices:

You're lucky to have nailed three -- I'm still struggling!

For 4K video, the kit lens (which is way better than most kit lenses) would be OK, but the 18-135 is significantly better, albeit slightly less sharp for STILLS.

The 18-55 2.4 - 4? I really liked it, but the absence of WR seal is kind of a deal breaker.

Although made in China (as opposed to most Fuji lenses being made in Japan), it’s solidly built, has an extremely useful range, has OIS, a silent motor, and is sealed. The only thing it lacks is aperture markings, which stands to reason since it’s a variable aperture lens. At the far ends, it isn’t as sharp (like any zoom) as it is in the middle, but is nevertheless a good performer (see examples on the WWW). This will be my go to lens for handheld video and for those times when I need 200mm or greater reach, which is very rare. If I need more, I’ll rent something longer.

Me too. I guess the 135 will deal most of my distant shots.

Speed is not an issue. Just set it at 5.6 or higher as needed at 1/60 and forget it (unless you have rapidly changing ambient light).

That's really a great idea!

For tripod video and everyday stills, the 16-55 fits the bill nicely. In the the unlikely event I need OIS for stills, see #1 above. This lens is expensive (but 200.00 off right now with the Fuji sale), yet it can’t be beat unless you go with a prime, and many reviews state that, at all lengths and apertures, it approaches prime quality. It’s sealed, silent, as has a marked aperture ring. Built like a tank and just about as big and heavy, but I’m OK with that compared to the Canon L zooms I’m currently lugging around.

The 16-55 was my first choice, I'd get body + 16-55 and no primes at all, but with no OIS is kind of a deal breaker, too. It seems that they left it behind on purpose.

A nice prime with a “normal” perspective. I’m torn between the 24 and 35 1.4 and f2. The extra speed is negligible. Having learned on 35mm SLR’s decades ago, I’ve had enough of the 50mm equivalent lens. Great for learning but in reality, a 35mm equivalent is more versatile without adding any appreciable distortion that takes you too far from what the eye sees. First impression reviews have me leaning towards the new 24 f2 WR. That’ll be good when I want to go light or rambling around in the rain shooting for pleasure.

On SLR days, my SMC Pentax-M 35mm F1.4 was my lens of choice, too, so, between the 23 and the 35, I'd take the 23. If you end up choosing the 23 1.4. please notice the annoiyng focus noise !

Right now it’s a toss up between the the 10-24 with OIS and the 55-200 tele. I’m pretty sure it will be the 10-24 starting out.The fact that it isn’t WR is OK for me since, when I need extreme wide angles, it’s always indoors. Not too concerned about no LM either since those shots are always manual aperture and fixed focus, even the vids.

I was planning to take her for a spin using her for star time lapses, so I'd have to full seal her.

YMMV, but if I could only buy one lens for the XT-2 with significant video use in mind, it would be the 18-135. If I didn’t care about 4K video, or never needed OIS, it would be the red badge 16-55. Fortunately, I think I have the budget for both and a few more.

I guess I'll stick to your fist suggestion (which was my first idea, too): the 18-135, and I'll add the 23 f/2 prime.

I'm starting my Fuji collection, and I'm buying all the gear abroad, since the prices here in Brazil are absurd (see my other posts for screenshots!), and your guidance really made difference.

Don’t let the naysayers tell you the 18-135 isn’t sharp enough or has too much distortion. Any that exists can be corrected easily in post.

I'm no pixel peeper, so I guess I'll be fine. Even the in camera jpg processing is wonderful!

In reality, at f5.6 or above, and in it’s middle 80% of FL range, it is plenty sharp.

Perfect acceptable for a walk around lens!

As for 4K video or 3840x2160 stills, which comprises 95% of my delivery formats, the output will be remarkable enough.

I'm really found of 16:9 stills!

Again again, don’t worry about the 1.17 crop when shooting a 3840x2160 video or extracted image.

I really don't, too, but I'd like them  to be magnanimous, hence the idea of using 10-24!

On a 4K monitor or UHDTV, if you do it right, the images and video should wow your audience.

Fingers crossed!

Thank you so much for your help and opinions!

LS