Hadn't expected to fall in love with this one! Wish it were faster.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

BertieMoo wrote:

Foskito wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

fuji 14 and the 60 are the 2 most underrated/best value lenses in its whole lineup for IQ/rendering.

They both kind of fell under the radar after the 16 1.4 and 56 1.2 came out.

I mean if you need 1.4/1.2...by all means get those, but if you don't, I don't think you're missing out on anything.

I have the 60mm and had the chance to use it a couple of weeks ago to take a portrait for a Governor's candidate and was blown away by its IQ, it is a great lens!

I’d second the 60mm fantastic lens. The only thing letting it down is the slow focus. Is is definitely one of my favourites.

ive heard similar about the 14 which is on my list alongside the 35 f1.8

The 60, being a macro lens (or macroish for people who need more magnification), has slower AF. Considering it's actually quite snappy on X-T3 and newer cameras I think had it been released now, as opposed to when Fujis were slower, the general attitude towards it would be different.

I join in the praise of the IQ of the 60, and I’ve experienced a huge boost to its performance on the used H1 I recently got, compared to my beloved but beat up T1. I can even use zone AF-C on macro shots with the H1, sometimes, but even single point AF-S was a problem on the T1 at magnifications above ¼ or so.

I like the 60 for portraits and landscape, as well. It is compact as well as versatile.

If they ever update it (not likely, I think, given the presence of the 80), I’d love to see the fiddly 39 mm filter abandoned for ~52, and perhaps WR, along with maybe faster AF — but don’t change the imaging!

I’d also love to see a ~40/2.8 macro with a max mag of 2 or higher, no IS but preferably WR, and maybe with a clutch like the 14, 16/1.4, and 23/1.4 (shorter lengths can be easier to get well diffused flashes on live subjects)—but that, too, is unlikely.

And I sorta wish the 80/2.8 had been released at 120 mm, as originally rumored, even if it were f/4. That would be better for working distance, at least when using natural light—and would have left more scope for an update of the 60.

I am very curious about the 14, but can’t justify it as I have the Rokinon 12/2 and the 16/1.4. Maybe someday.