Lenses for X-T5

Forgive me starting a new thread, I know I asked about this more generally yesterday but have done some further research and come up with more detailed questions!

1. The kit lens

It seems to me I have three options here - body only, the 18-55mm f2.8-4 R LM OIS or the 16-80mm F4 R OIS WR. As you normally get the kit lens bundled at a discount, it would seem a little silly not to get one. Which would you go for - the 18-55 2.8-4 or the 16-80?

2. Other lens purchases

Clearly my first port of call needs to be the Fujinon XF10-24mm F4 R. A must buy!

The best option for a telephone seems to be the 55-200mm used. This can wait though.

For primes, I'm really torn. It seems like I'd use a prime as a general walk about lens - and for this would you agree the best focal length would be 23mm?

Portfolio shot focal lengths

I pulled this data from Lightroom - it shows the distribution of my portfolio images across focal lengths. Clearly wide angle is my preference, though the bunching at 18mm and 55mm is more due to the 18-55mm lens I use - I think in the case of many of these shots I'd have happily gone wider / zoomed in more if possible! This to me makes the argument for the 16-80 more compelling, though I'm not sure if it tells me anything in terms of the best prime to go for ...


Portfolio shot focal lengths

--

Constructive criticism of my travel photography portfolio is always welcome:
www.stevenjamesmartin.com

If you can deal with the relatively heavier size of the XF16-80 compared to the XF18-55 and your budget allows for it, I'll suggest the XF16-80 for the constant aperture ring. On the X-T5, this means your aperture, shutter speed and ISO values are always available at a glance.

stevesayskanpai said:

Forgive me starting a new thread, I know I asked about this more generally yesterday but have done some further research and come up with more detailed questions!

1. The kit lens

It seems to me I have three options here - body only, the 18-55mm f2.8-4 R LM OIS or the 16-80mm F4 R OIS WR. As you normally get the kit lens bundled at a discount, it would seem a little silly not to get one. Which would you go for - the 18-55 2.8-4 or the 16-80?

2. Other lens purchases

Clearly my first port of call needs to be the Fujinon XF10-24mm F4 R. A must buy!

The best option for a telephone seems to be the 55-200mm used. This can wait though.

For primes, I'm really torn. It seems like I'd use a prime as a general walk about lens - and for this would you agree the best focal length would be 23mm?

Portfolio shot focal lengths

I pulled this data from Lightroom - it shows the distribution of my portfolio images across focal lengths. Clearly wide angle is my preference, though the bunching at 18mm and 55mm is more due to the 18-55mm lens I use - I think in the case of many of these shots I'd have happily gone wider / zoomed in more if possible! This to me makes the argument for the 16-80 more compelling, though I'm not sure if it tells me anything in terms of the best prime to go for ...


Portfolio shot focal lengths

Click to expand...

No idea what your budget is, but you might also consider bypassing both of those lenses and going straight for the 16-55 f/2.8. It's a heftier (and more expensive) lens, as you might expect given its constant f/2.8 aperture. However, from an IQ standpoint, it's superb across its FL range, and from my own experience, WAY better than the 18-55 you're currently using. A lot depends on how important the additional 55-80mm range is to your photography, and whether the constant f/2.8 aperture will benefit you as well. Affordability and handling of a larger lens are, of course, also important considerations and either one could be a "deal killer." However, for my purposes, under no circumstances would I swap that lens for either of the other alternatives being discussed here.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

I went through the internal “which kit lens” debate when I purchased my X-S10 and decided on the 16-80. I’ve added the 70-300 and TCx1.4 to complete my “travel kit” (for travel that isn’t just the X100V.)

The right length for a walkaround prime is purely a matter of personal taste. 23mm would be near the bottom of my list, being too wide. My favorite walkaround lenses on Fuji are the 27mm, the 35mm f/1.4, and the underrated 50mm f/2. I expect I will also end up with the new 30mm macro eventually.

Jerry-astro said:

No idea what your budget is, but you might also consider bypassing both of those lenses and going straight for the 16-55 f/2.8. It's a heftier (and more expensive) lens, as you might expect given its constant f/2.8 aperture. However, from an IQ standpoint, it's superb across its FL range, and from my own experience, WAY better than the 18-55 you're currently using. A lot depends on how important the additional 55-80mm range is to your photography, and whether the constant f/2.8 aperture will benefit you as well. Affordability and handling of a larger lens are, of course, also important considerations and either one could be a "deal killer." However, for my purposes, under no circumstances would I swap that lens for either of the other alternatives being discussed here.

Click to expand...

I have always wanted the 16-55 but my old X-T2/X-T20 bodies don't have IBIS, so I've been waiting for an upgrade but the X-T4 wasn't ideal for me. The X-T5 checks a lot of boxes for me, but I still need to justify it against the wife

So yes, make use of that superb IBIS in the X-T5!

OTOH, I'm totally happy with the Tamron 17-70, it's like the VR-version of the 16-55 for non-IBIS.

Super agree with this. I went through both the 18-55 and 16-80 before pulling the trigger on the 16-55 and it’s amazing how much of a difference it makes. With the 18-55 and 16-80, IMO the images are not any better than a modern smartphone (they both require good lighting and don’t offer any nice depth of field), but the 16-55 is super versatile at a constant f/2.8

I agree with everyone here, the 16-55 is simply amazing. as good as the primes, and I deeply regret selling mine as the prices have gone up significantly.

however, it is heavy and cumbersome. On my next trip I'm thinking of taking only the 23 1.4 but the 16-55 range is actually perfect for travelling. decisions, decisions... first world problems.

stevesayskanpai said:

1. The kit lens

It seems to me I have three options here - body only, the 18-55mm f2.8-4 R LM OIS or the 16-80mm F4 R OIS WR. As you normally get the kit lens bundled at a discount, it would seem a little silly not to get one. Which would you go for - the 18-55 2.8-4 or the 16-80?

Click to expand...

As someone who uses 18-55 I suggest getting 16-80. Three reasons:

1. 16-80 can go wider and at the same time has more reach. 18-55 is a classic range, but having a bit more on both ends makes 16-80 a more interesting lens in my view
2. Constant aperture which means marked aperture ring (as mentioned by bluequartz). Ring without the markings doesn't fit Fuji system IMHO because you can't look at the lens and set the aperture according to what you see, you need to look at the screen. It's a small thing but one that irritates me after one year with 18-55.
3. Weather sealing. You're getting a weather sealed body, go get a weather sealed lens as well!

I like the 16-80 a lot but it is very much a "Jack of All Trades, Ace of None" lens. It works great for me as a travel lens that I rarely have to swap off of (unless I want the much longer focal lengths) in decent lighting but if I really wanted the ultimate IQ I'd either shell out for the 16-55 or a couple of short/medium FL primes, like the 23 or 33mm f/1.4 LM WR lenses.

Why get a standard zoom at all?

You have 10 shots in the 30-36mm range and only 8 in the 20-26mm range, with 6 of those at 20-24mm which could easily be covered by the 10-24 you're already planning on getting. With that in mind you could pick up the 33/1.4 and use it as your general walkaround lens as you clearly seem to prefer that focal length.

For telephoto there's really no reason to get the 55-200 now when both the 50-140 and 70-300 exist (unless you're buying one used for cheep) since one is much better for speed and the other is much better as a walkaround telephoto and both work amazingly well with the x1.4 teleconverter along with being weather sealed just like the X-T5.

Although it isn’t the best zoom lens around, its definitely one of the best Fuji zooms (not many anyway), has a flexible focal range, it’s weather resistant and has great OIS.
In my opinion vs the 18-55, it’s an obvious choice.

Some of my best Fuji photos have been with this lens.

The thing I find interesting is that the 12-24 and 16-80 are not on the recommended (works best with) for X-H2 list (and thus not the X-T5)

The only wide zooms on this list are the 8-16, 16-55, and 18-120. First two are heavy, the third, iirc, has no aperture ring.

There’s also other interesting omissions: 16mm f1.4, original 23 f1.4, original 56 f1.2, 60 f2.4 (it’s a closeup lens, it should resolve).

Doug

+1 for the 16-55 f/2.8, a great all purpose lens in good light or bad, my most used lens by far.
I would absolutely skip the kit lens options. That’s what I did with my X-T2 way back when, no regrets whatsoever. Better to buy to better lens the first time, IMO. I haven’t used one, but the new Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 also looks to be a great alternative to the kit lenses.

grey pilgrim said:

The thing I find interesting is that the 12-24 and 16-80 are not on the recommended (works best with) for X-H2 list (and thus not the X-T5)

The only wide zooms on this list are the 8-16, 16-55, and 18-120. First two are heavy, the third, iirc, has no aperture ring.

There’s also other interesting omissions: 16mm f1.4, original 23 f1.4, original 56 f1.2, 60 f2.4 (it’s a closeup lens, it should resolve).

Doug

Click to expand...

I have started to think that this list was a marketing flop... Haven't seen any impressively sharp photo from 18-120...

Yannis1976 said:

grey pilgrim said:

The thing I find interesting is that the 12-24 and 16-80 are not on the recommended (works best with) for X-H2 list (and thus not the X-T5)

The only wide zooms on this list are the 8-16, 16-55, and 18-120. First two are heavy, the third, iirc, has no aperture ring.

There’s also other interesting omissions: 16mm f1.4, original 23 f1.4, original 56 f1.2, 60 f2.4 (it’s a closeup lens, it should resolve).

Doug

Click to expand...

I have started to think that this list was a marketing flop... Haven't seen any impressively sharp photo from 18-120...

Click to expand...

Agree, I wouldn't make too much of it in either direction

Yannis1976 said:

grey pilgrim said:

The thing I find interesting is that the 12-24 and 16-80 are not on the recommended (works best with) for X-H2 list (and thus not the X-T5)

The only wide zooms on this list are the 8-16, 16-55, and 18-120. First two are heavy, the third, iirc, has no aperture ring.

There’s also other interesting omissions: 16mm f1.4, original 23 f1.4, original 56 f1.2, 60 f2.4 (it’s a closeup lens, it should resolve).

Doug

Click to expand...

I have started to think that this list was a marketing flop... Haven't seen any impressively sharp photo from 18-120...

Click to expand...

Haven’t really looked at it, but not too surprising given the range of the zoom.

I’m not that fond of the 16-80, but there are environments (Sand, water, etc…) where you don’t want to be changing lenses all the time, and you need a lens like that. I’ll have to see how it actually does on the X-T5. The other options becomes the 16-55 (bulky, pricey) or the Tamron (no aperture ring, grumble).

Doug

Yannis1976 said:

grey pilgrim said:

The thing I find interesting is that the 12-24 and 16-80 are not on the recommended (works best with) for X-H2 list (and thus not the X-T5)

The only wide zooms on this list are the 8-16, 16-55, and 18-120. First two are heavy, the third, iirc, has no aperture ring.

There’s also other interesting omissions: 16mm f1.4, original 23 f1.4, original 56 f1.2, 60 f2.4 (it’s a closeup lens, it should resolve).

Doug

Click to expand...

I have started to think that this list was a marketing flop... Haven't seen any impressively sharp photo from 18-120...

Click to expand...

Stupid list. The 16 f/2.8 is on it and 16 f/1.4 isn’t? The 18-120 is, but the 56 f/1.2 R isn’t? It’s a list of lenses they want to sell you.

stevesayskanpai said:

Forgive me starting a new thread, I know I asked about this more generally yesterday but have done some further research and come up with more detailed questions!

1. The kit lens

It seems to me I have three options here - body only, the 18-55mm f2.8-4 R LM OIS or the 16-80mm F4 R OIS WR. As you normally get the kit lens bundled at a discount, it would seem a little silly not to get one. Which would you go for - the 18-55 2.8-4 or the 16-80?

Click to expand...

They are both good but I'd go with the 16-80mm for the marked aperture, WR, better OIS and more reach obviously.

stevesayskanpai said:

2. Other lens purchases

Clearly my first port of call needs to be the Fujinon XF10-24mm F4 R. A must buy!

Click to expand...

Yes and a Tamron version 11-20mm may be coming out too if you're happy to wait...not sure when though.

stevesayskanpai said:

The best option for a telephone seems to be the 55-200mm used. This can wait though.

Click to expand...

Yes that should be cheap used and there's an XC 50-230mm too which is ridiculously cheap but also good.

stevesayskanpai said:

For primes, I'm really torn. It seems like I'd use a prime as a general walk about lens - and for this would you agree the best focal length would be 23mm?

Click to expand...

That is personal preference. You can go 18, 23 or even 30-35. For indoors I find the 18 to be best and 35mm for outdoors generally.

stevesayskanpai said:

Portfolio shot focal lengths

I pulled this data from Lightroom - it shows the distribution of my portfolio images across focal lengths. Clearly wide angle is my preference, though the bunching at 18mm and 55mm is more due to the 18-55mm lens I use - I think in the case of many of these shots I'd have happily gone wider / zoomed in more if possible! This to me makes the argument for the 16-80 more compelling, though I'm not sure if it tells me anything in terms of the best prime to go for ...

Click to expand...

That's the thing with zooms...people tend to use them at the extremes! If you want an all in one solution then there's a super zoom option Tamron 18-300mm.

For better IQ people have already mentioned the f2.8 Tamron 17-70 and Fujifilm 16-55mm.

Good luck.

I've had both 18-55 and 16-80. I've never loved either.

Sigma is launching an 18-50 f/2.8 for Fuji that is already available in other mounts. I wonder how it compares to the Fuji 16-55, which I have rented numerous times and like a lot.

Fujirumors posted about the Sigma today. https://www.fujirumors.com/sigma-18...mount-listed-at-stores-announcement-imminent/