Is this a big mistake? Carribbean for a year with the X-A2 27mm & 18mm, instead of 16-50mm

I'm going to the Caribbean for a year for studies, and decided to dispose of my X-pro 1 and 35+60mm lenses in favour of a light-weight kit (partly because of general weight restrictions for flights).

I've got an X-A2 instead.

However, haivng already procured a 27mm to go with the remaining 18mm, I've been both surprised by the image quality and also the OIS (which I didn't know about) of the 16-50mm. I was meaning to sell off the 16-50mm but now I am having 2nd thoughts. But truly I wish to keep my kit as minimal as possible. so It's kinda come down to a battle between the two primes and this stupidly, annoying good, kit lens.

I usually ignore kit lenses because I enjoy the aperture and image quality (and size) of primes. But here I am seriously conflicted.

On the one hand the camera with the 27mm is just awesomely attractive, on the other hand the 16-50mm has an awesome range compared to 18mm & 27mm. I even found myself wondering whether I really want to give up on the 60mm in consideration of landscape shots, but talked myself out of that one pretty quick.

There's also the issue of camera and lens rotting humditiy and heat. the 16-50mm is a lot chaper a proposition if things go bad. But the 27mm and camera are both covered by a Fuji 1 year warranty.

Someone knock some sense in to me with some good advice. Are there other factors I can also consider to help make my mind up?

My new setup up (with handy filters) :

awe, cute!!

hmm, not so good-looking sister and not the best personality either (CA and corner softness):

Hrrumph, ugly monster, talented though :

my poor favourite lens, soon to sold off in to slavery, wanted to be photographed as well. Bit over-weight, dear:

I think that is a great compact kit!

Keep the kit lens and use it during the day when your need for f2 is reduced. If weight restrictions are that severe, fedex it to your destination.

Obviously you could just bring all 3. But if you're going to bring only 2, I would consider the 18mm and the 16-50mm.

18mm and 27mm are kinda close, the 16-50mm would give you more range and the 18mm gives you f/2 when you need it. The 27mm is sort of neither here nor there compared to the other 2 lenses- unless you happen to just really love that lens. It's most notable attribute is perhaps its size, but the 18mm is already pretty small.

For a hot and humid environment at an upcoming vacation spot, I opted to get a used 18-55mm f/2.8-4.  But I HAD been looking for the 16-50 (also used) having decided that it was fine for daytime picture-taking.  It was just that an 18-55 came up for sale at a great price (a kit lens that the original owner hadn't been using).

The odd thing is, I'm STILL contemplating getting a 16-50 as a light, cheap and versatile travel lens for the simple reason that people have been selling it for such a bargain sometimes.   In daylight,  I'd be using it at f/8, where it'd be razor sharp for what I wanted to use it for (vacation).  If I damaged it, it wouldn't hurt me very much.  It's the same rationale I used to get the (also under-rated) XC 50-230mm.

I've been at a windy beach where a sudden gust of wind covered a Sony point-and-shoot with sand when I had the camera on and the lens consequently extended.  I immediately pulled the battery instead of turning it off so that the lens wouldn't retract and pull dirt into the body.  It was a royal pain to remove all the grains of sand without a proper blower brush.  In fact, I gave up, put the camera into a ziplock and waited until I got home to clean it.

The short of it being that the nice range of the 16-50 means you might not need to change lenses at all if shooting in the day--and that's very useful in a sandy environment.  Also, and you would know this, being the owner of both, the 16 end would be noticeably wider than your 18 and thus be more useful if there's sufficient light.  [The 16 end is also why, despite me owning the 18-55, I'm still thinking about getting the 16-50.]

tl;dr - keep the 18 and the 16-50 if you must bring only 2 lenses.

Related:  would you get enough for the 16-50 selling it used to even bother?  Around here, I've seen them advertised for approx $120 USD asking price.

I have the XA1 with the 2 kit lenses, 16-50 and 50-230. I also have the 35/1.4 as it was on sale. This was my best purchase and it is almost always on my camera for walking around and especially good for night time low light. Best lens I've ever had IMHO. The kit lenses are both small, light and IQ very good. If you must have only 2 lenses, the 16-50 and 35/1.4 would be my choice. But also the 50-230 is fantastic in daylight for trips to seaside, parks, zoos, where you can't get in close. For a long zoom it is very light and small, almost as small as the 60mm, which is great but I don't use that often. And all three fit into a very small bag, or sometime I just put them all in my flack/photo jacket with it's big pockets. I don't go anywhere without my photog jacket, particularly on trips. I live in Thailand where it's hot, but the photo jacket is light and cool. Essential purchase for tropical climates.

In my opinion the 27 and 18 are redundant if you have the 16-50. Instead get the 35/1.4, one of Fuji's best lenses, and it can now be had second hand since the F2 came out.

How do you like the XA2? I'm thinking I should upgrade from my XA1, which I really like and have had almost 2 years now.

27 and 18?

You're good to go.

But you'll spend most of your time running the 27. The little guy just works.

I just got back from our annual vacation which always includes a cruise to the Caribbean. Been in and out of the Caribbean for years. This time, I took my X-E2 with my Rokinon 12mm, Rokinon 21mm, Rokinon 50mm, and Bower 8mm. Used the 8mm and the 50mm one time each. Used the 21mm about three times as much as the 12mm.

Personally, I'm not a zoom guy. After years of using primes, I just don't work well with zooms. I have the 18mm, which was probably my most used lens until I got the 12mm and 21mm Rokinon's. Lately I have actually been thinking about getting the 27mm to make a compact two lens AF travel kit. A little zooming with your feet and there will be very few times you miss not having anything longer. But if you prefer zoom lenses, the answer is simple, take the zoom and leave the primes home.

There is one thing I would not do and that is bring X-A2 over the X-Pro1 because the X-A2 has no viewfinder. The Caribbean is a very bright place and after owning nine different digital cameras and three smart phones, I can say the LCDs ranged between barely usable and useless in bright sunlight; no matter what the manufacturers claim. This included the X-A1 I used to have. In fact, even the EVF on my X-E2 got washed out once or twice because of bright sunlight.

Take all 3.

They are all small and light and should fit with the XA2 into a very small bag.

Hi,

There's no right (or wrong) answer.  They're both good kits.  It comes down to what you like and how you prefer to work. We're all different.  What we would do simply reflects our individual preferences.

Just for the record, a VF is the last thing I'd give up, especially in bright light.  And I too have come to value OIS in low light.

Enjoy your trip.  And post a few.

Regards,

Rod

uniball wrote:

27: Inherited from my wife. Sharp. Small/light. Can't close focus. A touch long for indoors, a bit slow for low light. I could easily live without it.

The lens or your wife? :))

X100 series with auxiliary wide and tele lenses if necessary?

Other than that just take the zoom but I'd definitely want a viewfinder in that bright light.

uniball wrote:

I live within walking distance of the beach in Florida. Have all 3 lenses. Here's my view:

The 18 is my favorite. Lovely draw. Good AF in either CDAF or PDAF, highly immune to hunting in any kind of light. Small and light. My carry everywhere, indoors and default night lens until I bought the 16.

16-50, my beach/dusty/sandy lens. Nice draw (an under rated lens). Small and light enough that's it's an easy all day carry. Slow apertures are no big deal in the tropics. No changing lenses. Cheap enough that if sand/salt/water mess it up, it's not a big loss. OIS helps with low light still's with no movement in the frame.

27: Inherited from my wife. Sharp. Small/light. Can't close focus. A touch long for indoors, a bit slow for low light. I could easily live without it.

As you can tell, if it were my call I'd sell the 27 and keep the 18 and 16-50. They're all good lenses. But consider the environment your shooting in. My experience in the islands is there's no such thing as "sand free". It's everywhere and changing lenses with a stiff offshore breeze and sand is not a great idea. Don't forget filters, lens caps, hoods, zip-lok bags.

I would keep all 3.  I love the 27mm and I disagree with the close focus.  I get within a few inches of the subject without an issue.  I guess its how you define close.  But it is a great lens as is the 18.  I miss my zoom a lot and I am considering the the 16-50 as an add on.  I already have a 14,23,27,35,56.  All great glass but a lot to carry for a day out.   I would like to have the 16-50 plus my 27 or 35 for walk around shooting.

The Name is Bond wrote:

I'm mostly a people shooter, so the 27mm makes more sense for my style even despite the slower f2.8 lens.

You are a mostly a people shooter now, but I suspect having 18mm or 16mm will be rewarding where you are going. Why stagnate when you have the opportunity to take some beautiful landscapes and 18mm will be good in tight town streets.

Like I said, travel with the 27mm mounted and mail the other two ahead of time.