Are 35 & 50 too close together?

nonicks wrote:

Snap Happy wrote:

Been trying to have a 3 prime light lens set for my X-T2.

The bigger picture here is I had to rationalise (aka release some cash) in order to buy into GFX.

My thinking was to simplify my X series lenses to 2 sets:

The 'do most things superbly well' zoom set

• 16-55
• 50-140

The compact, light 3 primes 'this is why I got into X series' set

• 16 f/2.8
• 35 f/1.4
• 50 f/2

Here's the problem: 35 & 50 feel too close together for me. So do I:

• Take one or the other, but not both, with the 16
• Ditch the 50, replace with the 90 (heavy, expensive)
• Ditch the 50, replace with the Viltrox 85 (heavy, but probably close to cost neutral to change)
• Ditch the 50, replace with Canon 85 f/1.8 (not much lighter with Fringer, but probably cost neutral to change)

Any other light, economic AF prime options >60mm?

If simplifying the lenses is the ultimate goal and you don't care about the weight of the setup and loss of fast aperture of the primes, then I would say Option one ( go zoom).

Picture quality ( micro-contrast, sharpness and color) of the 16-55 is equally good or better than the f/2 primes at f/2.8. I didn't really compare the focus speed but it feels a little faster than the f/2 primes. The only weakness to me of the 16-55 is that distortion on the extremes FL are quite noticeable. But that can be corrected more in PP. With that lens you basically got covered for 16, 23, 35, 50 with just one lens... The 35/1.4 still have a bigger advantage as it is f/1.4 and it's color rendering is more pleasing to my eyes.

To 50-140 or not, it's up to your need. Personally, I don't want to lug around the big heavy lens that I know I don't use much. I would choose the 90/2 to cover any mid tele purpose. I would also pair the 90/2 with 35/1.4 for the shadow FOV, low light and portrait needs.

With the 16-55/2.8 and 35/1.4 and 90/2, I don't think you will miss the 50/2 much.

I have already done the rationalisation - my conclusion was to keep a zoom kit, which is mostly used with a gripped body. That gives me a kit in many ways feels similar to my old Nikon gear.

The use case is situations where time and/or ability to change shooting position are limited (generally that's the main use-case for zooms as I see it) or the conditions mean changing lenses is a risk. I feel saving weight/volume is a lower priority here.

But I also wanted to keep a 3 primes set for use on an un-gripped body. This is the more creative use and the reason I ran X-series alongside my Nikon gear for a while before going all-in with Fuji. There is something really inspiring for me about grabbing a small light camera with a prime lens and manual controls. I suppose I am harking back to when the typical enthusiast 35mm outfit comprised of a 24 or 28, 50 and 135 (all of which were probably at least f/2.8 or faster), and was quite light and compact.

I am kind of having the same dilemma in GFX (although again, this is a different use-case - much more considered and deliberate landscape work with heavy gear and associated support system).

I already decided that in GFX I don't want zooms or something in the 'normal' 50mm equivalent range. I have equivalents of 18(rented), 35mm(bargain), 100mm already but I am already finding the 35mm equivalent gets used least.

I wouldn't be surprised if I end up owning just 2 GF lenses - the new 30mm i.e. 24mm and the 120mm (100mm) I already own. I'll rent anything else I need.