Will the XF50 complement the XF18-55 nicely?

Just a couple of days ago, I asked whether it's good enough to stick to just a 18-55 lens because I want to cure GAS...

Wells, I've been doing some research into the XF50 F2 too and I'm now wondering if it will complement the zoom lens, given its larger aperture especially at the wide end. Before my GR, I had occasionally paired an 85 F1.8 with my Nikon D90, so this could be my resurrection attempt at taking portraiture shots, in a significant (and conscious?) shift away from general landscape photography.

Essentially, how does the depth-of-field/subject-isolation compare between the XF18-55 at F4 vs the XF50 at F2? Is the kind of background blur on the prime going to be significantly better than the zoom? And how much low-light advantage will I be looking at anyways?

I think I've only come across one other thread here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4123877

edit: wouldn't be consider the XF56 as it's in a different pricing league altogether... And I should really stop at the XF50 as a second lens, if I'm inclined to do so...

Hi,

Yes it would complement the 18-55 well. The subject separation you get from f2 is significantly better than the zoom at 50mm and f4. You'll see only incremental differences at f8, if you see any at all.

Virtually every prime lens will complement the 18-55 in some way because they're different. I have both the 50mm and 60mm lenses. The 50mm is faster than the zoom. The 60mm is all of longer, faster and closer focusing than the zoom. The 50mm is faster at focusing, but of the two, I prefer the 60mm for those reasons - it's just a tad more different and therefore expands the kit in a more versatile way.

I don't quite understand the common reference to the 50mm as a FL that is in some way odd on APSC. Some people will tell you the 35/1.4 is a great lens for portraits, and they're right. There have been superb examples posted here. Others that 56mm is the perfect FL. Still others that the 60mm doubles fine as a portrait lens. They're all right.  Well the 50mm does too. (Leica have been offering 75mm for decades.) Photographers are different in their preferences. Subject opportunities are different. One adjusts and adapts......

Regards, Rod

LBThang wrote:

I would probably go with 35mm (or even wider). That is because I think 50mm is a very difficult focal length on a APS-C sensor. I find way too often that I cannot get the shot I want, because I my back hits the wall behind me. To see if that's true for you, I suggest you test some of the situations and the scenes you like to shoot, set your 18-55mm at 50mm, and then do not touch the zoom (Maybe use a bit of tape if you cannot control your fingers). Then do the same with 35mm. That should give you an idea which focal length works best for you

That's a good point actually, neither the X-T3 nor the XF18-55 exists in my hands right now, so maybe I shouldn't be so fixated on starting with two lens from the get-go and give myself some time to warm up to the Fuji system and the starter lens...

I still feel the reasons why I thought I might want the XF50 F2 are more technical, so it's possible that I don't mind the F4 depth-of-field at the tele end as I mentioned in my original thread...

bluequartz wrote:

LBThang wrote:

I would probably go with 35mm (or even wider). That is because I think 50mm is a very difficult focal length on a APS-C sensor. I find way too often that I cannot get the shot I want, because I my back hits the wall behind me. To see if that's true for you, I suggest you test some of the situations and the scenes you like to shoot, set your 18-55mm at 50mm, and then do not touch the zoom (Maybe use a bit of tape if you cannot control your fingers). Then do the same with 35mm. That should give you an idea which focal length works best for you

That's a good point actually, neither the X-T3 nor the XF18-55 exists in my hands right now, so maybe I shouldn't be so fixated on starting with two lens from the get-go and give myself some time to warm up to the Fuji system and the starter lens...

I still feel the reasons why I thought I might want the XF50 F2 are more technical, so it's possible that I don't mind the F4 depth-of-field at the tele end as I mentioned in my original thread...

I dont think the xf50 complement the 18-55 well. I shoot all sorts, action, landscape macro etc but when im going out i will rarely want to take both the 18-55 and the xf50.

the 18-55 is good, a jack of all trades if you like but i tend to take either the 18-55 on its own or pair with a walk about xf35 or take a Ricoh GR & xf50 or more recently im using the fuji 15-45 and the xf50.

What i really want is that 16-80 f4 zoom and id probably pair it with the 35 1.4

for what its worth the 35 f1.4 and the 50 f2 give the same dof if i remember and i think also the 60 f2.4..

I also find the xf50 a bit too short.

Cant go far wrong with a standard fast prime and a zoom lens for a start though.

maltmoose wrote:

bluequartz wrote:

LBThang wrote:

I would probably go with 35mm (or even wider). That is because I think 50mm is a very difficult focal length on a APS-C sensor. I find way too often that I cannot get the shot I want, because I my back hits the wall behind me. To see if that's true for you, I suggest you test some of the situations and the scenes you like to shoot, set your 18-55mm at 50mm, and then do not touch the zoom (Maybe use a bit of tape if you cannot control your fingers). Then do the same with 35mm. That should give you an idea which focal length works best for you

That's a good point actually, neither the X-T3 nor the XF18-55 exists in my hands right now, so maybe I shouldn't be so fixated on starting with two lens from the get-go and give myself some time to warm up to the Fuji system and the starter lens...

I still feel the reasons why I thought I might want the XF50 F2 are more technical, so it's possible that I don't mind the F4 depth-of-field at the tele end as I mentioned in my original thread...

I dont think the xf50 complement the 18-55 well. I shoot all sorts, action, landscape macro etc but when im going out i will rarely want to take both the 18-55 and the xf50.

the 18-55 is good, a jack of all trades if you like but i tend to take either the 18-55 on its own or pair with a walk about xf35 or take a Ricoh GR & xf50 or more recently im using the fuji 15-45 and the xf50.

What i really want is that 16-80 f4 zoom and id probably pair it with the 35 1.4

for what its worth the 35 f1.4 and the 50 f2 give the same dof if i remember and i think also the 60 f2.4..

I also find the xf50 a bit too short.

Cant go far wrong with a standard fast prime and a zoom lens for a start though.

Too bad my current Ricoh GR is dead. Actually, that's the reason why I've pre-ordered the X-T3, as I need it for a family vacation in end-October and there's nothing else new/exciting that I can get my hands on.

I wouldn't mind sticking to a standard prime lens for my own use, but one of the reasons why I opted for the XF18-55 is to make the X-T3 a more accessible camera for the smartphone generation to use: people who are gradually accustomed to zooming on their phones and the simulated bokeh effects.