New Zealand Lens Choice

Vic Chapman wrote:

COtoNY wrote:

Astrophotographer 10 wrote:

COtoNY wrote:

My wife and I are getting ready for a two week trip to New Zealand at the end of August/ early September. We're planning on flying into Queenstown and slowly working our way up to Wellington. I am very excited for all of the photographic opportunities, but also aware my wife will not enjoy the trip as much if I'm stopping to change lenses all of the time.

Given my current equipment below, I'm trying to decide if it's worth renting the 16-55 2.8 or something else.

Cameras: X-T1 and X-E1

Lenses: 16 1.4, 35 1.4, 18-55, and 50-230

When I'm walking around just doing photography, I generally like to use the 35 or the 16 and simply switch between the lenses. I like the look of these a little better than the 18-55. My initial plan was to put the 35 on the X-T1 and the 16 on the X-E1, but I'm afraid I'll miss some opportunities where I'll want to use the long zoom. This has gotten me thinking maybe I should rent the 16-55 to get the same quality I like from the primes. Appreciate advice on what has worked for other people!

A really common question and a bit confusing as there is so much choice and many have conflicting opinions.

New Zealand is all about the scenery. So a wide lens would be your primary lens here. There will be endless amazing beautiful lakes, mountain scenes. I have driven down the Highway from Christchurch to Queenstown and it can be stunning in places. Up there with Switzerland and easily one of the most beautiful scenic locations in the world.

10-24 zoom would be very handy. 16-55 F2.8 is a fine lens and is my main lens for my XT2. If it were me (I don't have any Fuji primes though) I would use the 10-24 and the 16-55. 35mm in APSc is really 52.5mm in full frame and for landscapes its starting to get long but still of course useable depending on how you like to frame your landscapes.

The 16-55 would be great for portraits as you can frame perfectly and F2.8 is very useable.

I know the 16 1.4 is very popular but for me viewing many Fuji landscapes from Greg's National Parks travels I felt it seemed a tad narrow for many of the shots and I preferred the 10-24 images more. The 18-55 is fine for XE1 and XT1 but not XT2 in my opinion where its weaknesses start to be revealed.

The 16-55 is one of the finest zooms I have ever used and its not really that large and heavy compared to its competitors.

An early morning shot of Lake Tekapu would be amazing with the 16-55 at 16mm and a tripod.

I am not sure how often you would use the 55-200 though. I don't remember seeing a lot of wildlife, mostly sheep.

Greg.

Thanks, Greg!

Appreciate the thoughts and your experience in NZ using the 10-24 and 16-55. How do you think about the weight of the 16-55? Would it be necessary to have the battery grip as well?

The battery grip is unnecessary (unless you expect to shoot action), you don't need it for balance. The Standard Fuji grip is perfect (or a 3rd party copy). The XT1/XT2 with standard grip are the perfect combination of size and weight for steady handheld shooting and the 16-55mm f2.8 is the first zoom I've ever used which I feel is the equal of my primes which are now relegated to special purpose use - mainly for the faster aperture. Your 50-230mm will compliment the 16-55mm f2.8 nicely for picking out the best compositions from landscape scenes. The 16mm f1.4 (if you already own it) will take care of evening low light and astro opportunities.

Vic

Vic, thanks! I will look at getting the standard grip instead of the battery grip. I already own the 16 (such a wonderful lens), so adding the 16-55 for this trip sounds like the way to go. Now to decide whether to rent or buy...