Lens Advice

Reskr wrote:

... I'm an amateur photographer and I currently own an XT-1, the 16mm 1.4 and the 18-55. I've recently saved a bit of money to spend on new kit and I was wondering what your recommendations were. Up till now, I've mainly been doing travel and landscape photography (hence the addition of the 16) but also enjoy street and architecture. I'm interested in macro and wildlife although I've never really had the equipment to do it properly, and I'd like to start taking casual portraits too.

Generally, I'm hoping to extend my range on the long end, and as I'm happy to go out in the rain or snow, I'd prefer WR lenses. I also use a tripod as little as possible as I've got a fairly steady hand, but OIS is always a bonus. I'm open to the idea of buying and using the 1.4x TC on the various lenses that support it.

I was torn between two possible routes - the 56 plus the 80 or just the 50-140 - but I'd welcome other suggestions. I've seen some beautiful results from the 90 too and like to shoot wide open when I can. I'm happy to carry heavy lenses around, but I am slightly worried about the length and balance of the 50-140.

The 50-140 would be an excellent choice. The focal range is extremely versatile. It is razor sharp, fast focusing, and has very effective OIS. It's one of my favorite lenses for fast action, for people, and for landscapes. And the IQ starts high enough that even with the inevitable reduction in IQ when using a 1.4x TC, the end result is still quite good.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned to 55-200 but it is my choice when I'm traveling by air or hiking. Not as sharp or as fast as the 50-140 but still very good IQ and a very attractive size given its range. I took it and my 16-55 on a month-long trip through India last winter and it performed like a champ.

The 100-400 is a solid lens and the only choice when you need a focal length of 400mm. It is not, however, as good as the 50-140 in terms of just about any aspect of performance...IQ, speed, light gathering. I bought it for wildlife but I find myself using it more for landscapes. If I'm being honest, I feel like it should be better than it is given the price, the size, and IQ that competitors have been able to achieve with this same focal range. But I use it regularly and happily. If this is the focal range you really want then you've got one choice.

The 56 is great for portraits or any time you need a shallow DOF with beautiful rendering. I don't see it being as great a fit for the purposes you mention. It doesn't focus particularly fast. It lacks OIS. You could use it for landscapes but I'm not sure it offers any advantage over, say, the 50-140. It would certainly be less flexible.

The 80, the only lens I'll discuss that I don't own and use, is great for macro (if I may state the obvious) but it's a compromise for most anything else. It's razor sharp but it has one of the least pleasing bokehs of the Fuji prime line up. If you need true macro (not to be confused with close up photography) then it's a great choice. For anything else, the 50-140 is going to offer more flexibility and the 90 offers a much more beautiful rendering of a scene—particularly in terms of bokeh. (I don't mean to sound anti-XF 80mm. I just consider it along with the 56 and 90 to be specialty lenses for anyone who is not a committed macro or portrait photographer.)