I bought my daughter a Fujifilm X-T5 with a Fujifilm XC 35mm f2 lens. I now want to buy her a more ‘do it all’ lens. What might you recommend at the ‘value’ end of the scale that will offer decent image quality and more ‘flexibility’ than the XC? Thanks for any suggestions you might have.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Fujifilm X-T5 lens recommendation…
- Thread starter Lesia44
- Start date
jhorse
Veteran Member
I often pair my XT5 with a XF16-50f4.8.
- Starts at 16mm.
- WR.
- Internal zoom.
- Excellent IQ.
- Small and light.
I own one. The best all-rounder I have ever had. Always wide-open, it works well.
--
https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou
--
https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou
Last edited:
Yannis1976
Veteran Member
I know its taking a lot of bashing from some people in our forum but if you check online reviews of actual users (e.g. amazon), rating is quite high.
The 16-80/f4 is still the best compromise in terms of IQ, value, size and weight.
The 16-80/f4 is still the best compromise in terms of IQ, value, size and weight.
Artur Darulewski
Senior Member
I would limit the choice to sigma18-50/2.8 and XF16-5/2.8-4.8.
I started from XF18-55 + XF55-200 after these two i bought XF35/1.4 and XF10-24. If you have classic fast prime then all-rounder zoom seems to be the best option. Next step can be UWA or tele if needed.
Cheers,
Artur
I started from XF18-55 + XF55-200 after these two i bought XF35/1.4 and XF10-24. If you have classic fast prime then all-rounder zoom seems to be the best option. Next step can be UWA or tele if needed.
Cheers,
Artur
Mountaingrapher
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 386
So many options... If you want a fixed focal length more versatile than the the XC 35mm/2, I'd suggest 3 options:
- the XF 33mm f/1.4: it is one stop brighter and slightly wider, a good all lighting conditions lens with that 50mm eq. "universal" focal length.
- the Viltrox Pro 27mm f/1.2: wider than 33mm, with a 40mm eq. focal length it is consider "identical to human eye". It will covers beautiful different style of photography from street to portrait, and even some landscape or close-ups. Its wide aperture and sharpness makes it a low light king.
- The XF 23mm f/1.4: with an eq. 35mm focal length it is considered a very versatile focal length for any type of photography from landscape to portraits.
- The new king is without a doubt the Sigma 17-40 f/1.8: bright and sharp it covers from wide angle to slight telephoto and it's wide aperture makes it usable in any light situation.
- The XF 16-55 f/1.8 II: a close to no compromise standard zoom
- the XF 15-50 f/2.8-4.8: the lighter & cheaper version of the one above but not as bright on the long end.
- the XF 18-120 f/4: it is largely superior to the 16-80 optically. its downsides are the power zoom (or not a downside), and its more limited range on the wide end, but nothing a few steps back can't solve in 80% of situations
- the Sigma 16-300mm for a transstandard that does everything.
silversportsman
Well-known member
I believe you meant F/2.8, but I agree that there are not many compromises, price notwithstanding.
crowley213
Senior Member
I dare to "second" this thinking, with some additional remarks:
If it is "just about taking nice pictures in different situations" (no negative meaning, not at all!), then a zoom lens is most likely the best option. Flexible, the suggested solutions deliver good image quality, different options concerning cost, nothing wrong with that.
But, if you daughter may be interested in "diving a little bit deeper into photography", then a prime lens also has its charm and benefits. She may learn faster some important concepts in photography (seeing, composition, techniques, etc.). At least I can say that using a prime lens for me is different than using a zoom lens, I concentrate more on other aspects of photography. Not a given, just a possibility...!
So, my very personal recommendation, just an opinion among millions of others... get her the Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 lens. A beautiful lens, I also use it on the X-T5, stunning image quality, a "neutral" focal length for a lot of shooting situations, reasonably priced for what it gives. And with it's size and weight it may even save the cost for the gym, means a potentially quick economical amortization...!
Herbert
Yannis1976
Veteran Member
very good but very big and heavy as well. Not sure how much a lady would appreciate this.
King? It’s heavier, bigger than anything else and is pretty limited in focal range. It’s more a specialized lens rather than do everything lens.
First time I read this and my experience from both was quite the opposite. The 18-120 is a video lens and when I tested it, it was even worse at corners and with noticeably worse bokeh.
agree plus the Tamron 18-300
jhorse
Veteran Member
I assessed both when I wanted a smaller, lighter standard zoom to replace my 18-55 and supplement my 16-55f2.8. Chose the Fuji as it started at 16 and was fully WR (whereas the Sigma only has a gasket around the lens mount).
Yup, that was my first Fuji set up (in 2016).
biza43
Forum Pro
The 35mm in APSC is equivalent in angle of view to around 50mm in 35mm film format. Hence, it is already (or used to be) a do it all type of lens. Why not let your daughter use the single lens for 6 months or 1 year?
Then she will learn if, and what, angle of view she might want to further her photographic endeavors.
Then she will learn if, and what, angle of view she might want to further her photographic endeavors.
There are some good suggestions here, however, I would lean towards asking what your daughter thinks she needs - i.e Wider? Longer? Aperture? etc. She is the one that has to use whatever decision is made. What is it about the lens she currently has (a great lens BTW) that is not fulfilling her needs?
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,745
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,349
There’s a lot you can do with a lens with that field of view.
There’s no need to feel that it’s restrictive unless you’re shooting wildlife or sports, or you have a great desire for wide-angle images.
The most natural complement to the 35/ would be either a wide angle prime (ie a single focal length, no more than 23mm and ideally less) or a “normal zoom” (ie something like 16-18mm at the wide and and 50-80mm at the long end).
Two decent wide angles that are available at good prices on the used market are the XF 18/2 and the XF 16/2.8. Both of these are good complements to the 35/2. Then at a similar price but new, there’s the Viltrox Air 15/1.7, which would make a good pairing as it should handle similarly, with no aperture ring.
As for zooms, the budget options would be used copies of the old XC 16-50 or the XC 15-45. The latter is a power zoom and thus a bit slow and fiddly to operate. The cost of either of those on the used market should be well below the retail price of a XC 35/2.
My favourite normal zoom is the XF 16-80/4, which handles really well and is very versatile. Used prices have fallen a fair bit recently (in the UK at least). Ignore the online handwringing about whether the image quality is great or not great: it’s good enough, and it doesn’t matter anyway. The bottom line is that there’s almost nothing you can’t do with this lens.
In summary:
- by all means buy a new lens, just be wary of thinking that the current one is holding things back: it almost certainly isn’t
- if the preference is for primes then consider the Viltrox Air 15/1.7, or the XF 18/2 if there’s an appetite for an aperture ring
- if the preference is for a zoom, the XF 16-80 is supremely versatile and great value
Last edited:
Hi guys, thank you so much for all the great replies, lots to think about there. And sorry to let all the replies pile up - I hadn’t set my notifications.
Just to add a little contex…
My daughter is in the first couple of weeks of a photography course at UAL in London, so the adventure begins! She’s had the camera/lens combination for just under two years and it’s her birthday in a couple of weeks, so with that and Uni, I think now’s the time to get her something new to play/experiment with. And I think it would offer a world of different possibilities if her next lens moves away from the fix lens model.
Okay, lots of reading for me here. Thanks.
Just to add a little contex…
My daughter is in the first couple of weeks of a photography course at UAL in London, so the adventure begins! She’s had the camera/lens combination for just under two years and it’s her birthday in a couple of weeks, so with that and Uni, I think now’s the time to get her something new to play/experiment with. And I think it would offer a world of different possibilities if her next lens moves away from the fix lens model.
Okay, lots of reading for me here. Thanks.
The diagonal angular field of view (AOV) for a full-frame 24x36mm sensor is 63.4 degrees for a 35mm lens and 46.8 degrees for a 50mm lens . The notion that the 50mm lens is "normal" or "standard" stems from the historical fact that for the 1925 Leica I, a 50mm was chosen as the standard for 24x36mm film. The first Leica 35mm lens arrived in 1930, when Leica became the first camera system in history with a standardized mount and interchangeable lenses.
But since 1925, there has been no trustworthy scientific evidence that 46.8 degrees AOV provides a more "natural" viewing perspective for humans. This whole idea is based on a misinterpretation of human vision. Our field of view is approximately 120 degrees binocularly, with a much smaller central foveal area for sharp focus. A single-lens camera image can only ever approximate this. The 35mm lens captures a wider field of view, more closely aligning with the immersive feel of human binocular vision, including some peripheral information. The 50mm, with its narrower AOV, crops out this peripheral context, creating a more isolated perspective, similar to tunnel vision.
In fact, the 50mm decision was a marketing decision, not a scientific one. At that time, cinema cameras used 50mm lenses for smaller 18x24mm film formats; fitting this existing well-known lens design to a wider frame was both simpler for lens designers and cheaper for the business, because otherwise Leica would have been forced to create a from-scratch design of a wider lens that covers a bigger frame too early. The 50mm (non-interchangeable at the time) was thus marketed to amateurs as a "standard, versatile, do-it-all" lens from the Leica start. Leica announced its first 35mm lens in 1930, 5 years later, after achieving initial commercial success and having enough money for R&D.
Since then, the debate of "what is more standard/natural, do it all type of lens" has become eternal. We have plenty of historical evidence that some people are more comfortable with 50mm AOV, while others with 35mm AOV, and there is no consensus because it is too subjective.
Photographers who favored the 50mm lens as their "standard", to name a few:
- Henri Cartier-Bresson,
- Robert Capa,
- Elliott Erwitt,
- Robert Frank,
- Walker Evans.
Photographers who favored the 35mm lens as their "standard", to name a few:
- Alex Webb,
- Joel Meyerowitz,
- Bill Cunningham,
- Vivian Maier,
- David Alan Harvey.
So my subjective, unobtrusive advice is: get a good, but not too pricey, zoom (for Fuji X, today it is Sigma 18-50/2.8; any slower aperture at 50mm is restrictive). Take your first 10000 shots with it. And do some statistics — how often do you use a specific focal length range? In the FF equivalent, Sigma is approximately 27.5-76.5mm FL and DoF-equivalent to F4.3 throughout the zoom range (so shoot wide open 90% of the time). Your reference points will be (in FF equivalent) 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm. And you will see for yourself what your "standard, versatile, and do-it-all" focal length is — maybe 28mm?
I have my own speculative theory: why some people (about 2/3 of the mass, I guess) prefer the 35mm AOV.
If your eyes are not ideal (some degree of myopia), you need to get closer to your subject to get a good view. Over the years, looking at the world from a closer perspective becomes an unconscious habit. This is my case - 35mm AOV fits better.
For those with ideal vision, there is no need to go a few steps closer to the subject to get a good view, so their unconscious habit is to see the world from a different perspective. This is my daughter - 50mm AOV (and longer) is her choice, she neither enjoys nor uses 35mm equivalent FL.
--
https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou
Last edited:
You had a nice summary but I'll make it simple for you without all the detail.
These are all lenses I've either owned, or would own. Listed from least to most expensive. Pick your price point and go with it.
Zooms
Sigma 18-50
Fuji 16-50
Fuji 16-80
Fuji 16-55
Primes: Start with 35mm or 50mm equivalent
Viltrox
Fuji F2.0 model
Fuji F1.4
Mountaingrapher
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 386
Having multiple lenses with you (fixed focal length or zooms) is quite a common practice, that's why we have Interchangeable Lens Cameras. I firmly believe that having 2-3 good primes will do more to her photography than a mediocre zoom.
That or the Fujifilm XF 16-50 f/2,8-4,8, because it's that good.
biza43
Forum Pro
Appreciate the history lesson, but I did not mention anything about the 50mm angle of view for 35mm format being similar to the angle of view of human vision. I simply stated that 35 APSC is equivalent to 50 FF, which provides an angle of view that can be used to photograph many subjects and situations. No more, no less.The diagonal angular field of view (AOV) for a full-frame 24x36mm sensor is 63.4 degrees for a 35mm lens and 46.8 degrees for a 50mm lens . The notion that the 50mm lens is "normal" or "standard" stems from the historical fact that for the 1925 Leica I, a 50mm was chosen as the standard for 24x36mm film. The first Leica 35mm lens arrived in 1930, when Leica became the first camera system in history with a standardized mount and interchangeable lenses.
But since 1925, there has been no trustworthy scientific evidence that 46.8 degrees AOV provides a more "natural" viewing perspective for humans. This whole idea is based on a misinterpretation of human vision. Our field of view is approximately 120 degrees binocularly, with a much smaller central foveal area for sharp focus. A single-lens camera image can only ever approximate this. The 35mm lens captures a wider field of view, more closely aligning with the immersive feel of human binocular vision, including some peripheral information. The 50mm, with its narrower AOV, crops out this peripheral context, creating a more isolated perspective, similar to tunnel vision.
In fact, the 50mm decision was a marketing decision, not a scientific one. At that time, cinema cameras used 50mm lenses for smaller 18x24mm film formats; fitting this existing well-known lens design to a wider frame was both simpler for lens designers and cheaper for the business, because otherwise Leica would have been forced to create a from-scratch design of a wider lens that covers a bigger frame too early. The 50mm (non-interchangeable at the time) was thus marketed to amateurs as a "standard, versatile, do-it-all" lens from the Leica start. Leica announced its first 35mm lens in 1930, 5 years later, after achieving initial commercial success and having enough money for R&D.
Since then, the debate of "what is more standard/natural, do it all type of lens" has become eternal. We have plenty of historical evidence that some people are more comfortable with 50mm AOV, while others with 35mm AOV, and there is no consensus because it is too subjective.
Photographers who favored the 50mm lens as their "standard", to name a few:
I doubt that they were limited in their choice of the gear to use
- Henri Cartier-Bresson,
- Robert Capa,
- Elliott Erwitt,
- Robert Frank,
- Walker Evans.
Photographers who favored the 35mm lens as their "standard", to name a few:
... and me, too
- Alex Webb,
- Joel Meyerowitz,
- Bill Cunningham,
- Vivian Maier,
- David Alan Harvey.
So my subjective, unobtrusive advice is: get a good, but not too pricey, zoom (for Fuji X, today it is Sigma 18-50/2.8; any slower aperture at 50mm is restrictive). Take your first 10000 shots with it. And do some statistics — how often do you use a specific focal length range? In the FF equivalent, Sigma is approximately 27.5-76.5mm FL and DoF-equivalent to F4.3 throughout the zoom range (so shoot wide open 90% of the time). Your reference points will be (in FF equivalent) 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm. And you will see for yourself what your "standard, versatile, and do-it-all" focal length is — maybe 28mm?
I have my own speculative theory: why some people (about 2/3 of the mass, I guess) prefer the 35mm AOV.
If your eyes are not ideal (some degree of myopia), you need to get closer to your subject to get a good view. Over the years, looking at the world from a closer perspective becomes an unconscious habit. This is my case - 35mm AOV fits better.
For those with ideal vision, there is no need to go a few steps closer to the subject to get a good view, so their unconscious habit is to see the world from a different perspective. This is my daughter - 50mm AOV (and longer) is her choice, she neither enjoys nor uses 35mm equivalent FL.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum