Prime Lens Path for X-T20

Moving over from Canon to Fujifilm next week (just have the last of my Canon lenses to sell first), and am purchasing an X-T20 as it seems to be a good all rounder as my first foray into a mirrorless system.

Prefer my primes, so am thinking to just by a Body only (and skip the 18-55mm) and start off with a 35mm F2, but what I do for my next lens has me reading over 40 different articles/forums.

I'm also very tempted to go down the route of the WRF2, 1. Because they are lightweight 2. They are not too expensive (could get two F2s for the price of the 56mm) & 3. Because the 23, 35 & 50 come in silver (who am I to deny that they look gorgeous).

I am thinking

1. 35mm F2

2. 50mm F2

3. 23mm F2

4. 90mm F2

But a part of me thinks that the 35mm - 16mm - 90mm is probably the more logical choice, but it just doesn't excite me as much.

OR

I stick with the 18-55mm and just get the 56mm.

I know the 18-55mm is a great lens BUT I have also read so many people found it great in the first couple months then after a prime or two, it has sat in their bag collecting dust. I would rather start off with a prime and add to my collection, BUT am I being foolish here and passing up a great piece of kit?

I know we are all different as far as what we prefer, but for the expenditure would you rather the 4 Primes or for convenience the Zoom + the 56mm Prime?

I got the kit with the 18-55 as well as the 35 f/2. One big reason I got the 18-55 is that I thought it would be good to have a stablized lens for certain situations and for video.

Hello there,

Hmm, I guess that would really depend on your shooting style. If you had a range-finder kind of fuji, I'd recommend you dive straight into the primes. But the X-T20 is quite handy with a zoom, and honestly I admire the 18-50 kit lens, it starts at f2.8 and its optically quality has been raved about a lot for a kit lens. Also, to buy it as a stand alone lens is rather expensive, so I think it has good value if you buy it as part of a kit. I'd recommend you to buy it now or you might regret it later, if a zoom is your thing.

The f2 primes are amazing! I've used several of them, they autofocus really fast compared to the older fuji primes. If you aren't doing serious portraiture, I'd rather get two or more f2 primes than the 56mm (which is gorgeous), i like the idea of a few more focal lengths, the extra option seem to excite me more.

My 18-55mm is not getting used much after I got the 35mm f1.4. It is a good lens. But if I’m doing it again, I would skip the 18-55mm. If you are a prime shooter, then I think going directly to primes makes sense.

I like shooting primes, but the 18-55 is so versatile that I won’t part from it. As a matter of fact, the 18-55 is still one of my most used lenses because it is sharp, has OIS, is not too big and has a nice focal range.

lexvo wrote:

I like shooting primes, but the 18-55 is so versatile that I won’t part from it. As a matter of fact, the 18-55 is still one of my most used lenses because it is sharp, has OIS, is not too big and has a nice focal range.

Me too.

I have all primes as well. Your plan looks good, but I would add the 16 in there as well. I would start with the 35 f/2 R WR, and then pick up the other f/2 lenses if you like that one. Next add the 16 and 90 and you have all WR lenses.

I've the X-T10 which is identical size and weight-wise to the X-T20. I have three primes for it (sammy 12, 27 and 60) and they handle great on the body. Anything larger (above 200 grams in weight) is a bit heavy on such a small body.

I think the 23 and 50 f/2 would be a nice pair as they're well spaced out, the 35mm is too close to both of them. And maybe add the 90 if you need more reach.

16mm F1.4

35mm F1.4

55-200mm

If you have the money...

80mm macro or

90mm F2

You're not forced to buy these 4 lenses at once

Get one lens, from there on decide what further wishes you have.  23 or 35 are usually pretty allround focal lengths to start with; my pick would be the 35 because it is more compact. Add the 90 and you already have a very versatile kit, or the 18 2.0 if you prefer something wider and cheaper (a new 18 can be had for around 300 euro)

Buy the kit with 18-55mm and add 23mm f2 or 35mm f2.

That makes for a very solid and compact kit.

You can still sell the 18-55mm, and in fact that will give you a cheaper X-T20-body, than if you bought it as body only.

What lens path you choose for primes is very personal. I like the combination 23mm + 50/56mm, someone like the 16/18mm + 35mm (+ 90mm). Someone like to have access to every focal lengths with fantastic primes.

I have had a lot off lenses over the years, but now I have ended up with 2 primes and 2 zooms that basically cover all my needs.

In UK the X-T20 is sold as a kit with the 16-50 zoom for only another £100  over the body only price.  That is a huge bargain, even if you only use it sparingly.  The 55-230 zoom is a similar bargain.  The 18-55 is only £300 as part of a kit and is a good lens.

It is frankly foolish to NOT buy the kit with the 16-50 at least, it is such a bargain, in UK at least.

I know we are all different as far as what we prefer, but for the expenditure would you rather the 4 Primes or for convenience the Zoom + the 56mm Prime?

That is you trying to sell the prime option to yourself instead of being honest about the actual cost.

The X-T20 + 18-55mm = 1199

the 56mm F1.2 = 999 with the bundle 2198,-

the 90mm F2 = 949,- with the bundle 2148,-

total

The body only is 899,-

The 23mm F2 is 449,-

The 35mm F2 is 399,-

The 50mm F2 is 432,-

The 90mm is 949,-

Total 3128,- compared to 2148,- While still not having a decent wide-end option the 23mm being as wide as you can go

Your comparing a set 50% more expensive and ask which to choose. given the same expenditure............... That's being dishonest against yourself trying to defend your already pre determined choice to go with the primes.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR8.TRC1.A0.H0.Xfujinon+18-55.TRS0&_nkw=fujinon+18-55&_sacat=0

The money invested in the 18-55mm is never lost. You can sell close to the bundle price even if you decide you'd want to shoot primes.

To answer your question. it's a rare occasion that it's not the answer but the question that is dumb.

don't forget de 14mm f2.8

it's a fantastic lens!!

paulo menge wrote:

don't forget de 14mm f2.8

it's a fantastic lens!!

Absolutely; 16mm would be too narrow to be my widest lens.

Also, 23/35/50 does seem too tightly grouped to me.

I find the 18-55 invaluable when you want photos and simply can't "zoom with your feet".

Current kit in sig; I sold the 90/2 when I realised how little I was using it, partly because size and weight meant I wasn't using it much at all.

Stuart

Do people actually use this focal range: 55-200mm? I would not buy a lens until you really, really need one and stick with primes or the standard kit range.

Having owned a Nikon, I owned a lens with this exact focal range. I got it around 2001 and have only used it twice, and have since gotten rid of it. It's a long a bulky lens, probably great for that Savannah Africa trip, and most likely will not be used for other trips because of its weight. I guess it's also good for taking photos of Little Johnny on the field. But I don't have kids.

My move from Nikon to Fuji has replaced the 70-200 f4 with the 50-200 zoom. I used the former a lot for landscape, both single frames and stitched panos and expect to use the 50-200 similarly. So, yes people do. This https://flic.kr/p/DNyf92 is a stitch of a lot of images from the 50-200 (yes, I know at 55mm)

a_c_skinner wrote:

My move from Nikon to Fuji has replaced the 70-200 f4 with the 50-200 zoom. I used the former a lot for landscape, both single frames and stitched panos and expect to use the 50-200 similarly. So, yes people do. This https://flic.kr/p/DNyf92 is a stitch of a lot of images from the 50-200 (yes, I know at 55mm)

Wow, very nice shot! I did not think about the panoramic capabilities. Thanks!

jotjotzzz wrote:

Do people actually use this focal range: 55-200mm? I would not buy a lens until you really, really need one and stick with primes or the standard kit range.

Having owned a Nikon, I owned a lens with this exact focal range. I got it around 2001 and have only used it twice, and have since gotten rid of it. It's a long a bulky lens, probably great for that Savannah Africa trip, and most likely will not be used for other trips because of its weight. I guess it's also good for taking photos of Little Johnny on the field. But I don't have kids.

Perfect for whale watching, on a boat, typically 300-500 feet away. Fills the frame with sharp images. But it’s what I bought it for, and I do that quite a bit.

I actually either end up using wide or long more often than anything in the middle. Which is why I went ahead and got the 18-55 as a kit. I figured I might as well pick it up cheap and have it for the times I do shoot in the middle. Otherwise, I'll sink my money into the ends of the spectrum.