Moving from Canon to X-t3--lens suggestions for Fuji

buckeyevet wrote:

KariP wrote:

You have not used Canon IS-lenses (?) And no IBIS experience ?

Honestly, no. I had a Tamron lens originally before upgrading to the 24-70 and neither one had IS/VC (as Tamron calls it). The Mark iii has no IBIS.

I have used Canon camera gear since - perhaps it was 2007. First Fuji also a long time ago. Some months ago I bought a R6 also (did sell some Canon lenses). EF L 24-70 could work with it quite well (with adapter) - just to remind you that you can stay in the Canon camp...

I toyed with a mirrorless Canon, since I've used nothing but Canon since I started taking pictures over 30 years ago. That said, once I put that X-T3 in my hands during my week rental, I knew it was time for a change. Having all the adjustments right there on the outside of the camera brought me back to the old film days. It was so much more intuitive to me.

Anyway 18-55 is an OIS lens and it will work perfectly with X-T3 (no IBIS). XT4 has also IBIS and a lens like 16-50f2,8 is quite fine with it.

You can live happily without OIS lenses or IBIS , but they both really help in low light, with videos and if you want to use a longer shutter speed /lower ISO (or a long lens)

18-55 was my first Fujifilm lens and I can not complain - portable and IQ is quite good. Most used lens in my Fuji-bag

I'm really leaning towards the 18-55 because of the OIS, and that it is lighter than the 16-55. I can easily add a prime lens or two with an f/2.8 or lower to compensate for the f/4 on the 16-55.

I have and keep the 18-55. I have sound reasoning and hope it doesn't upset anyone.

At 18mm it is F2.8. At 21mm to about 40mm it is only ever a third of a stop or half stop behind. It's only at about 40mm it is two thirds and then a whole stop behind and then OIS should make up for at least one stop.

Of course it cannot do 16mm and the 16-55 will do more isolated (but not by a huge margin) backgrounds most of the way through the range. Also no WR.

But I have primes for shallower dof and if I need lower light / high ISO.

I have now the 23mm F2 (which I find IS sharp at F2 not landscape corner to corner sharp but sharp enough even for a group of 10 people full body group portrait!) and 56mm F1.4 from Viltrox.

I will add one more for wider angles if I come to find I need it. If not I toss up the idea of the 33mm F1.4 (for me again Viltrox due to budget)

I don't know if Sigma will do a Fujifilm version of their new 18-50mm F2.8 but a friend has it for his Sony A6600 and boy is it nice. Same size as my 18-55 F2.8-4 OIS, lighter and close focus distance of about 3cm! I wouldn't likely get it seeing I have the 18-55 for the same reasons above.

If money was no object to me I would try the 16-55 and have seen great photos from it! On a stabilised body too, then you will really see the advantage over the 18-55 I guess! But then again the 18-55 would then have dual IS, in lens and in body so again it comes down to do I need wider reach and better performance wide open as before F5.6 and F8 it does better than the 18-55 for edge and corners etc.

This is my own personal use case and of course does not fit for everyone. I also don't like carrying anything larger than the 18-55 on my camera, same reason I didn't keep the excellent performing 55-200mm