Lens advice please for new convert coming from DSLR

After 18 years with first Minolta, then Sony, I am downsizing and have decided on the Fuji system. I ordered a used X-T1 with the 18-55/2.8-4 lens from B & H and it will arrive this week. I have been reading all I can about the different lenses and would love to get some feedback from other Fuji people based on the lens selection I am used to and the kind of things I shoot.

My current camera is the Sony A77 and the lens I use the most is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 EX version. I also have the Sigma 70-200/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8 macro, Minolta 100-300/4.5-5.6, Minolta 50/1.4.

I have others but these are my most used lenses. I love the large apertures of most of these and know I will be giving some of that up, at least temporarily, because of the cost of the new system. I can not afford to replicate all the focal lengths and the fast apertures right off the bat with Fuji.

Since my Sony has in-camera stabilization I never needed to consider whether the lens did. But I think that will be important for me. I shoot mostly outdoors, scenics, close-ups, patterns in nature and also birds (stationary and in flight). I have 2 grandkids and shoot some people but not that much.

So here is what I am thinking - The 18-55/2.8-4 will be the replacement for my Tamron 17-50. I like the OIS.

I am conflicted about whether to get the 55-200/3.5-4.8 OIS (I like the aperture range and only $100 more than this next one) or the 50-230/4.5-6.7 (lighter in weight is nice but not crucial).

And I am in a quandary whether I should be considering the 18-135/3.5-5.6. It is OIS, and WR which really appeals to me. I just do not like the sound of the smaller apertures. I would be choosing this instead of the 18-55 (for now at least). How would people who use both compare the IQ and focus speed of these two?

Long term I definitely want the 100-400/4.5-5.6. It is OIS and WR. I do shoot birds some and I know I am giving up that ability for now by switching because I currently use my Minolta 100-300 and my Sigma 70-200 for that.

And does anyone use the Rokinon 300/6.3 Reflex lens? I realize it is manual focus but at prices as low as $219 I am tempted to try it.

If I get one prime for now, which shall it be? I love my Minolta 50/1.4 especially for people.

I know I won't get much for some of my lenses, especially the Minolta ones. Should I spend the money for an adapter so I can use some of them even though they will be mannual focus?

One more item - I am going to Australia this fall and will need to consider weight and probably do not want to carry more than 2 lenses. So is that the 18-55 and one of these - 55-200 or 50-230? I do not travel a lot but I do hike and carry my camera.

Or is the 18-135 an excellent travel and combine it with one of the longer ones instead of the 18-55 and a longer one?

Thank you for any advice and real world experience with these questions. I am very excited for my X-T1 to arrive so I can get started learning all about it!

Looks like there is a newer iteration than the one I have, but it is not going to fit the x mount.

I have the Samyang Reflex 300mm f/6.3 ED UMC CS in X-mount.

See my review here:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/samyang/lenses/samyang_300_6p3/user-reviews

Here is my gallery for this lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1438043515/albums/samyang-300mm-f6-3-x-mount

You will definitely need a sturdy tripod to use with this lens. It is manual focus and always F6.3 (no way to stop it down or up). Very lightweight, and about the same size as the Fuji 18-55.  Well built and focus ring is wide and quite nice to use.

You will put up with vignetting and a need for extremely precise focusing in order to get about 8 mp of image resolution. The X-E1 sensor is sharper than this lens.

Under the right conditions you can get very nice results. For the price I think it is very good.

PS it makes a very nice street lens because it is small and unobtrusive. But you still will need a tripod.

Thank you for your review link Tom. I do have a good tripod. At this price this lens might have to do as my long lens until I save up enough for the Fujifilm 100-400/4.5-5.6.

Any idea if there is any difference between the Samyang and Rokinon brand? I am guessing they are produced in the same place and are just branded differently.

swiftseven wrote:

Thank you for your review link Tom. I do have a good tripod. At this price this lens might have to do as my long lens until I save up enough for the Fujifilm 100-400/4.5-5.6.

Any idea if there is any difference between the Samyang and Rokinon brand? I am guessing they are produced in the same place and are just branded differently.

I've been a little superstitious about this and so far it has worked out well.  Samyang is the actual manufacturer, so my guess is the quality might be better than the other brand names.  This might not matter at all.

Hi,

The 18-55 is an excellent all-rounder, great value for money purchased with a body, and offers reasonable speed for a zoom and OIS.  For travel and landscape, I'd agree with 57even that the 14mm is an excellent wide angle (and far less expensive than the larger, heavier and faster 16mm).

Your dilemma appears to center on how to get the longer end - 18-135, 55-200 or 50-230.  Obviously the 18-135 is an option that might replace the 18-55 and a longer zoom, but I personally found when I tried one that it was a bit large (for me) to enjoy on the camera all the time.  It's a not a strength thing, but a balance and feel thing.  (I use the 18-55, and for the same reason and lack of OIS wouldn't buy the 16-50 either.)

Of the 50-230 and 55-200, the former is the cheaper, slower and (at 375g) far lighter lens.  It has a plastic mount, but there haven't been problems reported with breakage.  It's owners do report that its optical quality is actually pretty sound, and more so for the money.  The filter size is usefully the same as the 14 and 18-55.  The 55-200 is better in both build and optical quality but weighs 600gm by the time you add the caps on.  It's definitely a more noticeable lump in the day pack if you're traveling with it for any length of time.  An excellent lens.  I love it when I use it, but have to confess that it gets left at home simply because of its weight.  And I don't take it at all on extended trips overseas.

Enjoy whatever you decide.

Regards, Rod

The 18-135 is greatcas an all-around lens being close to 28-200 equivalent. Add its weather resistance and you have a great, if not somewhat large combo.

Definitely grab an inexpensive adapter and use your longer lenses until you can get the glass you want.

While the adapters make a normally short (in length) a little unwieldy on a longer lens like your 70-200 it wont be an issue.

You're gonna love the Fuji. When I picked up an X-T1 for the first time I was hooked. I sold my D800 and bought one as soon as I could.

This is great, thanks for the recommendations. It makes me feel better about having the 18-55 as my all around lens at least to start out with. I was worried about giving up the constant 2.8 I had with my DSLR but it sounds like it is a very good lens. I just wish it was WR. (I might have to try out the 18-135 too though. Maybe I'll rent it to see.)

I might look for a used 50-230 to try mostly because the lightness would be great for travel. And I will look for a prime to add, probably the 35 but not sure whether the 1.4 or the 2. And the 90 sounds really good to me too. Some day I will have the 100-400. I think I will pass on the 300 reflex for now.

Keep the advice coming please. I tend to obsess over research before I purchase anything so love to see what others use and like. Thanks!

Oh gosh...after more research I have now ordered the X-E2 with the 18-55/2.8-4 from Adorama for the amazing price of $699. I couldn't pass that up and I can return the used X-T1 and lens that is on it's way to me. Maybe I like the X-E2 enough and that gives me money for another lens. Or maybe I eventually upgrade to the X-T1 which is what I will probably do. So many excellent options!

Or keep both. The X-T1is a great camera! Then you won't have to second guess yourself 😈

swiftseven wrote:

After 18 years with first Minolta, then Sony, I am downsizing and have decided on the Fuji system. I ordered a used X-T1 with the 18-55/2.8-4 lens from B & H and it will arrive this week. I have been reading all I can about the different lenses and would love to get some feedback from other Fuji people based on the lens selection I am used to and the kind of things I shoot.

My current camera is the Sony A77 and the lens I use the most is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 EX version. I also have the Sigma 70-200/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8 macro, Minolta 100-300/4.5-5.6, Minolta 50/1.4.

I have others but these are my most used lenses. I love the large apertures of most of these and know I will be giving some of that up, at least temporarily, because of the cost of the new system. I can not afford to replicate all the focal lengths and the fast apertures right off the bat with Fuji.

Since my Sony has in-camera stabilization I never needed to consider whether the lens did. But I think that will be important for me. I shoot mostly outdoors, scenics, close-ups, patterns in nature and also birds (stationary and in flight). I have 2 grandkids and shoot some people but not that much.

So here is what I am thinking - The 18-55/2.8-4 will be the replacement for my Tamron 17-50. I like the OIS.

I am conflicted about whether to get the 55-200/3.5-4.8 OIS (I like the aperture range and only $100 more than this next one) or the 50-230/4.5-6.7 (lighter in weight is nice but not crucial).

And I am in a quandary whether I should be considering the 18-135/3.5-5.6. It is OIS, and WR which really appeals to me. I just do not like the sound of the smaller apertures. I would be choosing this instead of the 18-55 (for now at least). How would people who use both compare the IQ and focus speed of these two?

Long term I definitely want the 100-400/4.5-5.6. It is OIS and WR. I do shoot birds some and I know I am giving up that ability for now by switching because I currently use my Minolta 100-300 and my Sigma 70-200 for that.

And does anyone use the Rokinon 300/6.3 Reflex lens? I realize it is manual focus but at prices as low as $219 I am tempted to try it.

If I get one prime for now, which shall it be? I love my Minolta 50/1.4 especially for people.

I know I won't get much for some of my lenses, especially the Minolta ones. Should I spend the money for an adapter so I can use some of them even though they will be mannual focus?

One more item - I am going to Australia this fall and will need to consider weight and probably do not want to carry more than 2 lenses. So is that the 18-55 and one of these - 55-200 or 50-230? I do not travel a lot but I do hike and carry my camera.

Or is the 18-135 an excellent travel and combine it with one of the longer ones instead of the 18-55 and a longer one?

Thank you for any advice and real world experience with these questions. I am very excited for my X-T1 to arrive so I can get started learning all about it!

I had the 18-55 and the 50-230 but sold both in favor of the 18-135. The IQ and zoom range is good enough for me and like the fact that I can grab my camera with one lens and accomplish quite a bit. If I need a little wider or want a nice video companion, I'll take my Sony RX100 III and have it in my pocket.

Keep it simple!

I would go with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm as your basic combo to replace your 17-50 and 70-200 2.8 combo.

Just be willing to push the ISO a stop higher and you should be fine. The 55-200mm is heavy for an x series lens, but much lighter than your Sigma 70-200.

For a prime lens, try the 35mm 2.0. This makes a nice light setup shooting family and grandkids.

Adding the 100-400mm should obviously be your next step after that for your bird photography.

I'm not a fan of the 18-135mm's image quality but your needs may vary. The XC zooms (16-50mm and 50-230mm) are good optically, but very poor in terms of build quality and feel.

Acrill wrote:

Keep it simple!

I would go with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm as your basic combo to replace your 17-50 and 70-200 2.8 combo.

Just be willing to push the ISO a stop higher and you should be fine. The 55-200mm is heavy for an x series lens, but much lighter than your Sigma 70-200.

For a prime lens, try the 35mm 2.0. This makes a nice light setup shooting family and grandkids.

Adding the 100-400mm should obviously be your next step after that for your bird photography.

I'm not a fan of the 18-135mm's image quality but your needs may vary. The XC zooms (16-50mm and 50-230mm) are good optically, but very poor in terms of build quality and feel.

It's funny but when I had the 18-55, I didn't use my 35 f2 as much as I do now with the 18-135. I like the flexibility of the 18-135 but it is nice to change to a lighter faster lens every so often.

There are a lot of questions here.

Let's start with the 18-135. Great lens. It is the best super-zoom ever made, by anybody. All-metal, professionally sharp, close-focusing, weather-sealed - what's not to like? It's on par with the 18-55 as far as IQ and focus speed. The IS is at least one stop better. The IS on that lens is amazing. It is far better than any IBIS you've experienced. Downside: It's slower, but only about 1/2 a stop compared to the 18-55 and 55-200. It's big and heavy. That's why I ended up selling mine. I just didn't like the way it felt and balanced on the camera. I personally prefer the 18-55, 55-200 pair.

55-230. At full retail maybe it's only $100 cheaper than the 55-200 but I bought a brand new one on eBay for $150! That is a lot cheaper than the 55-200. It's about 1/2 a stop slower than the 55-200, but it's got better reach, and is on par as far as IQ, AF and IS is concerned. It is a whole lot lighter, but the build-quality is not in the same league. It is definitely worth considering if you only reach for a tele-zoom occasionally or weight is a critical factor.

You mentioned you enjoy fast primes. I would not have a system that didn't include at least one fast prime. For me, it is a necessity. Which one? It depends on which focal length you shoot the most and/or what other lenses you have.

If you go with a two zoom kit or the 18-135, I would probably go with the 35 - either version. The 1.4 is faster and maybe a little better optically (although some reviewers hold the opposite view). The f/2 is smaller, focusses faster and is WR. If WR is important to you, the 18-135 and the 35 F/2 make for a very small, versatile and weather-sealed kit.

If you decide on the 18-55 and only want to carry two lenses I would recommend the 90 f/2. That lens is absolutely kick-ass. It's not IS but is veryfast. It is superb for portraits, kids, pets, landscapes, semi-macro shots, sports and birds (if you can sneak up on them ) The 18-55 and 90 make a sensational two lens kit.

If I were faced with a 'desert island' scenario, I would forgo the zooms altogether and take the 16, 23 and 90. But that's just me.

P.S. I have not tried the Samyang 300, but I have owned a few other reflex lenses over the years (good ones - Nikon, Vivitar series 1, Minolta) and have found them to be mostly useless. Toys more than tools. I learned a long time ago that buying cheap alternatives to good glass is never money well spent.

Acrill wrote:

Keep it simple!

I would go with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm as your basic combo to replace your 17-50 and 70-200 2.8 combo.

Just be willing to push the ISO a stop higher and you should be fine. The 55-200mm is heavy for an x series lens, but much lighter than your Sigma 70-200.

For a prime lens, try the 35mm 2.0. This makes a nice light setup shooting family and grandkids.

Adding the 100-400mm should obviously be your next step after that for your bird photography.

I'm not a fan of the 18-135mm's image quality but your needs may vary. The XC zooms (16-50mm and 50-230mm) are good optically, but very poor in terms of build quality and feel.

This combination sounds better all the time and is definitely what I am leaning toward at the moment. I want to stick with XF lenses and I just can't imagine being satisfied with the 18-135 but I will try it out at some point to make sure. Thanks for the help!

Acrill wrote:

Keep it simple!

I would go with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm as your basic combo to replace your 17-50 and 70-200 2.8 combo.

Just be willing to push the ISO a stop higher and you should be fine. The 55-200mm is heavy for an x series lens, but much lighter than your Sigma 70-200.

For a prime lens, try the 35mm 2.0. This makes a nice light setup shooting family and grandkids.

Adding the 100-400mm should obviously be your next step after that for your bird photography.

I'm not a fan of the 18-135mm's image quality but your needs may vary. The XC zooms (16-50mm and 50-230mm) are good optically, but very poor in terms of build quality and feel.

I've shot them side-by-side. I could not see significant difference in the IQ between the 18-55 and the 18-135. Both are easily better than the 16-50. The 55-200 is a little better at 135, but it should be.

MrFlash wrote:

There are a lot of questions here.

Let's start with the 18-135. Great lens. It is the best super-zoom ever made, by anybody. All-metal, professionally sharp, close-focusing, weather-sealed - what's not to like? It's on par with the 18-55 as far as IQ and focus speed. The IS is at least one stop better. The IS on that lens is amazing. It is far better than any IBIS you've experienced. Downside: It's slower, but only about 1/2 a stop compared to the 18-55 and 55-200. It's big and heavy. That's why I ended up selling mine. I just didn't like the way it felt and balanced on the camera. I personally prefer the 18-55, 55-200 pair.

55-230. At full retail maybe it's only $100 cheaper than the 55-200 but I bought a brand new one on eBay for $150! That is a lot cheaper than the 55-200. It's about 1/2 a stop slower than the 55-200, but it's got better reach, and is on par as far as IQ, AF and IS is concerned. It is a whole lot lighter, but the build-quality is not in the same league. It is definitely worth considering if you only reach for a tele-zoom occasionally or weight is a critical factor.

You mentioned you enjoy fast primes. I would not have a system that didn't include at least one fast prime. For me, it is a necessity. Which one? It depends on which focal length you shoot the most and/or what other lenses you have.

If you go with a two zoom kit or the 18-135, I would probably go with the 35 - either version. The 1.4 is faster and maybe a little better optically (although some reviewers hold the opposite view). The f/2 is smaller, focusses faster and is WR. If WR is important to you, the 18-135 and the 35 F/2 make for a very small, versatile and weather-sealed kit.

If you decide on the 18-55 and only want to carry two lenses I would recommend the 90 f/2. That lens is absolutely kick-ass. It's not IS but is veryfast. It is superb for portraits, kids, pets, landscapes, semi-macro shots, sports and birds (if you can sneak up on them ) The 18-55 and 90 make a sensational two lens kit.

If I were faced with a 'desert island' scenario, I would forgo the zooms altogether and take the 16, 23 and 90. But that's just me.

P.S. I have not tried the Samyang 300, but I have owned a few other reflex lenses over the years (good ones - Nikon, Vivitar series 1, Minolta) and have found them to be mostly useless. Toys more than tools. I learned a long time ago that buying cheap alternatives to good glass is never money well spent.

Good information here, thank you! I certainly subscribe to the belief that I am too poor to buy cheap things! I have learned that many times over. The 90/2 definitely intrigues me. And I'm feeling more certain that the 18-55 and 55-200 are what I will start with. I should have my camera and the 18-55 by the end of the week.

My only Fuji zoom is the 18-135mm and I don't particularly enjoy using it.

No problem with the IQ, it just doesn't work for me as a tourist, walk around lens, which is what I bought it for. I'm currently on holiday in Thailand and I find my little 27mm pancake spends more time on my X-T1.

I can't really pin down what it is that I dislike, probably a combination of factors. The unmarked aperture ring irritates me, although I happily use the 27mm with its thumbwheel aperture control. It feels unbalanced when I carry it, although I'm OK using an adapted 70-300mm Sigma. Even the lens hood is fiddly to get on and off!

I chose the 18-135 because of its versatility, but I'm tempted trade it for something that suits me better.

As for adapted lenses, for the price of a cheap adapter you can get a lot of enjoyment. One of my most-used lenses is a Nikkor 105mm .