Newbie with X-T2 lens dilemma

Jerry-astro wrote:

Cliff Fujii wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Cliff Fujii wrote:

I will always recommend the 16-55 over the 18-55 because of the 2mm more wide angle (equivalent of a 24mm on FX) and the high resolution of the lens. I think that the same dilemma that Nikon D800 users faced when it was released. Many of Nikon's lenses did not have sufficient resolution to do the sensor justice so Nikon came out with a technical bulletin pointing out what lenses will work the best with the D800/800e.

Again if you would rather afford the 18-55 + 90 then that's your decision. I purchase lenses to last the lifetime of the system. I made a mistake when getting the 18-55 with my X-E2 as I never use it. It's a good lens but I just like the subject isolation I can get with the 16-55. I also like the fact that I don't have to change lenses between the 16 and the 18-55 when touring thus eliminating one possibility for dust pollution of the sensor.

I don't own a 90 f/2 because it doesn't fit into my line up. If I needed a 90 (which examination of all of my images with Lightroom search didn't reveal a single image) I would put on my 50-140 which is almost as fast (f/2 vs f/2.8).

Why do people buy the 16-55? I can't speak for others but I got mine because f/2.8 @ 55mm gives me better subject isolation and it's resolution is about 10lpmm greater than the 18-55. I would have saved money not buying the X-E2 with the 18-55 kit but so many folks here were singing it praise I went and got it. I wasn't disappointed but I did also want the extra 2mm most for photographing buildings in old Europe. Yes the 18-55 is lighter but I come from the DSLR world and am used to carrying around a D800 or a Df with a 24-70 f/2.8. Since Fuji is a APS-C camera it won't get the great high ISO ability of the Df but it's light enough for me to use during the daylight hours going down to EV3 or greater.

That's a great summary of your thought process in staying with the 16-55 and I appreciated your sharing the logic. I'm also faced with a similar quandry as I consider what my next lens will be. I'm going back and forth between the 16-55 and the 56 f/1.2. The benefits of the 56 are clear and it will give me some opportunities for thin DOF and portraiture that simply aren't possible otherwise. Conversely, the 16-55's constant f/2.8 is very enticing and I really enjoyed having it with my old Canon 7D paired with the 17-55.

I too am eyeing the 56 f/1.2 to replace my 35 f/1.4 as my museum lens. For me, I need a lens with better corner sharpness as most of the things I'll be photographing in a museum will be paintings and documents. If Fuji had a fast macro, I would be all over it as flat field lenses (like enlarger lenses) are great for copying documents. I have a Nikon PB-6/6E bellows outfit I use for macro work. I'm thinking that I might try macro work with the X-T2. All I need is a good body adapter.

A couple of [what feel like] pretty big issues are holding me back with respect to the 16-55. The first is the size/weight. I moved to Fuji specifically to reduce the weight and bulk of my system, particularly in "walk around" situations such as general travel photography. I also do a fair amount of low light photography where IS really helps a lot and where tripods are not necessarily practical. In those circumstances (say a dark cathedral interior), IS may be your only alternative to get the shot since tripods are not even allowed in many cases. The 18-55 has served me well, and at least in those situations, the aperture on the wide end is the same: f/2.8. The additional 2mm would be great, but not helpful if your shots end up with camera shake. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm having trouble getting past these issues and leaning more towards getting a 56/1.2 before the prices shoot up at the end of the month.

Yes, size and weight are consideration I made also. I compared it with my Nikon Df travel rig (24-70 f/2.8) and I didn't feel the weight was as much as I thought it would be. My Fuji travel rig weighs about 1/2 of what my Nikon travel rig weighed.

Any further thoughts or things to think about here would be most appreciated.

You really think the prices in the US will shoot up? I guess I need to get my hand on a 56 to see how it handles. The 56 has the same issues as the 35, corner sharpness. The 56 is superior in the center at a max of 75lpmm while the edges are a max of 55lpmm. At f/1.2 it drops to 44lpmm (still decent) in the center and 29lpmm (terrible) at the edges. That's not very good and that's what's been keeping me from getting that lens because I will probably be using this lens at f/2 or less. The 60mm f/2.4 does much better at a maximum of 62lpmm in the center and 59lpmm at the edges. The problem is that this lens only goes to f/2.4 which means I could do as well with my 16-55. When I got the 35 f/1.4, I was willing to put up with the relative un-sharpness of the lens at the edges.

I've found that the 16-55 weighs less than the lenses it replaces and it's IQ is as good or better than the primes. It seems like the weight is an issue for you so I suggest you walk around with you camera weighed down to the equivalent of the X-T2 with the 16-55. This might help you decide. If you have the battery grip, you might load that up with batteries and carry it around with the 18-55 to see how that feels.

Great advice and additional detail, thanks. Our local photo store is having a "gear loan weekend" coming up where they'll give you various gear to try out. Hoping I can get a 16-55 to try out for a while to see how it feels. Wouldn't mind also taking the 56 for a spin as well. I have paired the battery grip with the kit lens and it's right on the edge of acceptability in terms of weight for carry around/tourist/travel use, so I'm definitely leaning more in the direction of the portrait lens. Trying it out will definitely help me finalize the decision.

First things first... have to sell my 55-200 to help fund the lens purchase. Terrific lens, but I'm getting almost no use out of it since buying the 100-400.

I guess it depends on what you take portraits of.  In a formal studio setting, I actually prefer the older Nikon 70-200 f/2.8.  The new one has focus breathing so it's not a great lens for portraiture.  With the Fuji, that would be the 50-140.