What lens to purchase?

hi everybody, i'm an happy 2 years old user of Fuji X-T1.

First i have used the 18-55 kit lens..then i bought the 27 pancake for travelling light...with fujifilm cashback last year i bought 35 1.4, 55-200 and 90.

so in my bag i have:
X-T1 , 27, 35, 18-55, 90, 55-200 + Nissin i40 + manfrotto mini tripod + benro travel angel ii

now i'm waiting for X-T2 because i need a second body for events and cerimony, but first i would like to buy another lens:

1. 10-24
2. 14
3. 16
4. sell 18-55/27 and buy 16-55
5. sell 18-55/27/90/55-200 and buy 16-55 plus 50-140, remaining 35 1.4 for its magic lens
6. i do not need other lenses
thanks in advance

FUJI sale going on giving you GAS ?

Hi. It's hard to give you a good advice without knowing what kind of photography you are more interested in. The kit you have is already quite complete, I would say, lacking a bit only on the ultra-wide side.

Sorry, but without anymore information this sounds like gas. What would you like to do that can not be done now?

If I look at your lineup I would say a 14 or 10-24. If you like zooms and don't mind the weight get the 10-24. Otherwise buy the Fuji 14 (or Samyang 12, f2).

Good luck!

ShutterNot wrote:

FUJI sale going on giving you GAS ?

i don't understand you answer 

Gas = gear acquisition syndrome

gadesimone wrote:

ShutterNot wrote:

FUJI sale going on giving you GAS ?

i don't understand you answer

GAS = Gear Acquisition Syndrome

Meaning that it sounds a bit like you're more interested in "collecting" gear than into taking photos, most of all since you don't specify what the new lens you would like to buy would do that you can't do with what you have...

Xe11ent wrote:

Gas = gear acquisition syndrome

ahahah

perhaps...but sometimes i need something more wide than 18mm...so i'm looking for 16 for large aperture and wr..but the 16-55 could be a good choice in substitution of the 18-55 that i don't like so much.....

gadesimone wrote:

1. 10-24
2. 14
3. 16

You could go either way depending on priority. Small size/fast aperture etc.

I have the 14 because it is super quality and not too big. I tried the 10~24 but it's bigger, slower and not as sharp in the corners (which is important to me in this range).

The 16 is faster but bigger and not as wide.

4. sell 18-55/27 and buy 16-55

Not for me. It's too big. It also lacks OIS, though in this range I don't often need it. I use the zoom for travel or convenience so I'm happy with the 18~55. Otherwise I use primes.

5. sell 18-55/27/90/55-200 and buy 16-55

No, as above,

plus 50-140,

super lens. Will it suit you better than the 90? It does me, but its hard to suggest you sell the 90 (unless you sell it to me).

remaining 35 1.4 for its magic lens

The only Fuji lens I have sold so far. I prefer the Zeiss 32mm f1.8.

6. i do not need other lenses

No you probably don't, but that might not stop you. Go back and ask yourself what you need the lenses for and see what suits you best.

Since you specifically mentioned events I voted for the f/2.8 zooms.  They really are amazing.

Had you mentioned landscape instead, I would have voted for the 10-24.

Drew O wrote:

Hey, we all get a touch of GAS now and then. The current rebates have given me a bit (just ordered a 16mm...)

If I were you, I would pick up a 14mm, which is on super-sale right now! That'd cover the wide end, and it's a nice compact lens that would complement your 18-55 for travel. Of course, I don't know what kind of shooting you do or if you ever really want something on the ultra-wide end. For me, 14mm+18-55 is an awesome travel setup, sometimes adding in the 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 for people shots.

10-24 is a very nice lens, but it's large and heavy and I find that the 10-14mm range is almost TOO wide. Long experience has shown me that I tend to keep shots from the tighter end of that lens's zoom range, so I don't often carry it these days.

16-50 is just too damn big and expensive, and doesn't give you much capability beyond the 18-55 in my opinion especially since it lacks OIS.

My advice, as a fellow recovering GAS sufferer: Buy a 14mm, spend the rest on printing/framing a few of your favorite shots, or on a trip to capture some new favorites.

I bought a used 14 and find myself using it more than the 18-55 since I like shooting wide. It's an excellent lens and very compact but if you aren't interested in landscape, it may not create enough value for your kit.

If you don't like the 18-55 (which I do but sometimes I think some people have a bad copy) it can be reasonable to sell it and buy the 16-55.

Personally I like the weight and size of the 18-55 much better but to be honest I haven't tried the 16-55.

blink667 wrote:

Drew O wrote:

Hey, we all get a touch of GAS now and then. The current rebates have given me a bit (just ordered a 16mm...)

If I were you, I would pick up a 14mm, which is on super-sale right now! That'd cover the wide end, and it's a nice compact lens that would complement your 18-55 for travel. Of course, I don't know what kind of shooting you do or if you ever really want something on the ultra-wide end. For me, 14mm+18-55 is an awesome travel setup, sometimes adding in the 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 for people shots.

10-24 is a very nice lens, but it's large and heavy and I find that the 10-14mm range is almost TOO wide. Long experience has shown me that I tend to keep shots from the tighter end of that lens's zoom range, so I don't often carry it these days.

16-50 is just too damn big and expensive, and doesn't give you much capability beyond the 18-55 in my opinion especially since it lacks OIS.

My advice, as a fellow recovering GAS sufferer: Buy a 14mm, spend the rest on printing/framing a few of your favorite shots, or on a trip to capture some new favorites.

I bought a used 14 and find myself using it more than the 18-55 since I like shooting wide. It's an excellent lens and very compact but if you aren't interested in landscape, it may not create enough value for your kit.

The 14mm is such a good deal right now in the US.  It does seem that size is at least a little consideration in your mind, so I would pick it over the 10-24.  It is such a nice lens.

The 14 is my second most used lens. It is a great product! Alsd keep the 18-55.

+1

gadesimone wrote:

1. 10-24

Larger lens, having 10mm wide and OIS is great.  A little soft in the corners, not as good as the 23/1.4.  But, it is a wide angle zoom --- corner sharpness is usually forgiveable for most shots.  I bought the 10-24 over the 14 because I don't shoot ultra wide that often, but, when I do, the 10-24 meets my needs better -- especially having OIS for hand hold shots over head or down low.

2. 14

Great optics in a small package.  However, it is also slower.  If I was putting together a very small prime, package I'd probably for for the 14.

3. 16

With WR and f/1.4, the 16mm looks to be an excellent, fast wide angle lens.  End game prime that probably won't be replaced soon.

4. sell 18-55/27 and buy 16-55

The 16-55 is big and heavy and doesn't have OIS.  If you plan on using the 16-55 a lot as your main walk around lens, this makes plenty of sense.

5. sell 18-55/27/90/55-200 and buy 16-55 plus 50-140, remaining 35 1.4 for its magic lens

If you are mainly a zoom shooter, this really works.  You can then buy a 10-24 or 16mm for the wide end as you see fit.

6. i do not need other lenses

#6 is not the answer --- there would be nothing to discuss if it was, therefore it isn't.  

If it was up to me, I'd get the 10-24 or swap the 18-55/27 for the 16-55.  16mm is a lot for wide angle prime that I wouldn't use its advantages that much; 14mm is getting to be a bit dated (i.e., rumors of it being replaced next year are starting).

The 50-140 is very expensive and heavy.  When taking portraits, I prefer the 90 over the 50-140; hence I couldn't see selling it.

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

6. i do not need other lenses

#6 is not the answer --- there would be nothing to discuss if it was, therefore it isn't.

If it was up to me, I'd get the 10-24 or swap the 18-55/27 for the 16-55. 16mm is a lot for wide angle prime that I wouldn't use its advantages that much; 14mm is getting to be a bit dated (i.e., rumors of it being replaced next year are starting).

Sorry, but what is 'dated' about the 14mm?  Apart from the fact that it's not sealed, I would have thought it was up amongst the best XF lenses in terms of both IQ and mechanical implementation.  I haven't seen the rumor you mentioned, but it wouldn't be my pick for the lens most in need of an update - there are better candidates.

Regards, Rod