Deliberating on kit for event and portraiture. 16-55, or others?

I've given this a lot of thought recently, but I think all that's left is to ask for some external advice and then decide the option I want to pull the proverbial trigger for.

Until recently, my photography has been purely personal. When switched to the Fuji X-T2, along with a sole 35mm f1.4 lens, I recall feeling completely satisfied with my setup. For the mixture of portraiture, lifestyle and street photography I shoot, it was enough. I did find that the autofocus was sometimes limiting for the wide-open style of street shooting I do, but I could afford to miss a shot here and there.

That changed, however, as I've been looking to expand my repertoire into event work and portraiture. As a university student, I've had many opportunities to informally cover events for societies and non-profits there. My time there has made me realise that this may be something I would want to do professionally part-time, even if that means starting off with small paid gigs in the same vein of scenarios I've been previously been volunteering for the experience.

If that's my aim, my current kit isn't going to cut it. I love the images my 35 produces when it hits, but that's the key part: when it hits. Even for small-scale gigs, I need to trust my gear to produce consistent results.

That thought process has led me to considering the 16-55 zoom. I know the 18-55 is also an option, but the shallower depth of field at longer FLs, the faster autofocus (which is a large part of why I can't just work with my 35mm) and the weather sealing (it rains almost every photowalk here in the UK) skews the balance for me. Besides, since I mostly photograph people, I prefer wider apertures over the slower shutter speeds enabled by the OIS. I can find the 16-55 for around £650 used, and can sell my old Canon f4 L zoom which I haven't used since I started with Fuji.

My main concern here is the implications of that decision for the rest of my kit. Alongside event work, portraiture's very important to me, and to most that would scream "56". However, considering I already have the 35 and perhaps the 16-55, it would feel too redundant FL-wise. A "final" kit I'm considering is the 35mm f1.4, the 16-55mm f2.8, and 90mm f2 (which would give me the reach I occasionally need for larger events and telephoto landscape), and would be within my budget. I wonder whether the 35 + 90 combo for traditional portraiture, along with the zoom for environmental shots, would be enough (without one of the 56s)?

I would love the 56 1.2, but from what I hear, its autofocus might just compound the problem I have with the 35, and not having two Fuji bodies (only a Canon as backup), I don't think that'd be versatile enough for event work...

Anyways, I apologise for the ramble I've gone on. Would love some advice and thoughts from others who've perhaps had the same dilemma.

It really depends on YOUR shooting style and the types of event. For events, I always preferred a fast 35 on one body and a 70-200 on the other. I was shooting more people where I couldn't necessarily get right next to them either because I didn't want to interrupt a conversation, they were on stage, or I was limited to a photo pit for access.

As for the 56, not sure how that would be redundant. it's quite different, 1.2 is going to give you a diff look than 2.8, that's over 2 stops difference that will give you far more ability to blur out a distracting background or shoot in challenging light.

The 90 for events would be good only if you really know where you're going to be sitting towards the action, if you want length I'd suggest the 50-140 instead actually...

For a prime, somewhere in the 85/100mm FOV range is going to be the most versatile for portraits.... It's why it's so popular, in most situations, you can pull back for a full body plus move in for a head and shoulders without much distortion w/o changing lenses. A 90 you need to get really far back usually, the 35 would be good for environmental photos but still might be too tight indoors.

I personally don't like 50 FOV for traditional portraits (anything other than full body)... I'd start at 70 end of a 70-200 minimum if at all possible. That's just me though.

For events, what I see being used often is the f/2.8 duo, that is, 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. These would match with your 16-55, plus the 50-140 zoom.

I also see a lot of people using slower zooms, like 24-105 f4.

Complement with a fast prime, and you are all set.

The ideal event/portrait setup for me is the 16-55 (super versatile and good for portraits) and the 50-140 (versatile, excellent for portraits, excellent OIS for longer focal lengths) on two bodies. Using primes, most folks go the the 16 or 23 with the 56 route, but 35/56 will work too, less versatile though. At an indoor event I’d rather go 16/35 than 35/56. The 90, while great, is a bit long and not stabilized which limits its indoor usefulness somewhat. If I could only have one lens/one body it would be the 16-55, hands down.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

The ideal event/portrait setup for me is the 16-55 (super versatile and good for portraits) and the 50-140 (versatile, excellent for portraits, excellent OIS for longer focal lengths) on two bodies. Using primes, most folks go the the 16 or 23 with the 56 route, but 35/56 will work too, less versatile though. At an indoor event I’d rather go 16/35 than 35/56. The 90, while great, is a bit long and not stabilized which limits its indoor usefulness somewhat. If I could only have one lens/one body it would be the 16-55, hands down.

+1, 16-55 + 50-140 is the most practical kit. Add one or two  special fast primes and you have more or less a workhorse kit. (You already own one).

atalwar wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

The ideal event/portrait setup for me is the 16-55 (super versatile and good for portraits) and the 50-140 (versatile, excellent for portraits, excellent OIS for longer focal lengths) on two bodies. Using primes, most folks go the the 16 or 23 with the 56 route, but 35/56 will work too, less versatile though. At an indoor event I’d rather go 16/35 than 35/56. The 90, while great, is a bit long and not stabilized which limits its indoor usefulness somewhat. If I could only have one lens/one body it would be the 16-55, hands down.

+1, 16-55 + 50-140 is the most practical kit. Add one or two special fast primes and you have more or less a workhorse kit. (You already own one).

Yup, I always bring my trusty 35 f/1.4 too.

I shoot events for my church and am a former Nikon shooter that used 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 Nikkors for this purpose.  After switching to Fuji, I have found the 18-55 to be quite limiting for events held indoors when flash is not an option.  Often there just is not enough light to use a shutter speed sufficient to minimize blurring of moderate-rate people movement (OIS doesn't help in many situations).

I recently purchased a 16-55 to use with my X-H1.  Big difference, big improvement in capturing the moments with the extra aperture. I'm back to where I was with the Nikon normal zoom.  It is now my go-to lens for these events.  At the moment, I haven't needed more FL often enough, but if I did, I would strongly consider the 50-140 for its aperture as well as the flexibility of a zoom.

I feel that the 35 f1.4 has really come in handy in low light situations and just general everyday shooting. However in most lighting situations I encounter, shooting at f2.8 is good enough. Although I'm not a professional photographer, the 18-55 came in handy at a birthday event I shot. I was lucky enough to have a lot of natural light coming through the windows. Personally, it's a good lens if you're outdoors but it has its limits and I'm not a fan of the IQ.

I've been reading a lot of good things about the 16-55 f2.8 and may consider getting it in the future if I decide to part ways with the 18-55.

hotaruhikari wrote:

Even for small-scale gigs, I need to trust my gear to produce consistent results.

I've been shooting event photography for over 20 years. I have made more money with the 70-200mm equiv. zoom range than any other lens (24-70mm equiv is #2). If you want to do it right, get two bodies w/power grips, two flashes, a 16-55 and the 50-140.

I personally would never re-hire any "pro" who showed up with only one body. Stuff happens. Get an X-T1 or, if necessary, even an X-A or X-M series till you can another X-T2 or higher. Lots of events are very dark so good low-light AF is critical.

hotaruhikari wrote:

I've given this a lot of thought recently, but I think all that's left is to ask for some external advice and then decide the option I want to pull the proverbial trigger for.

Until recently, my photography has been purely personal. When switched to the Fuji X-T2, along with a sole 35mm f1.4 lens, I recall feeling completely satisfied with my setup. For the mixture of portraiture, lifestyle and street photography I shoot, it was enough. I did find that the autofocus was sometimes limiting for the wide-open style of street shooting I do, but I could afford to miss a shot here and there.

That changed, however, as I've been looking to expand my repertoire into event work and portraiture. As a university student, I've had many opportunities to informally cover events for societies and non-profits there. My time there has made me realise that this may be something I would want to do professionally part-time, even if that means starting off with small paid gigs in the same vein of scenarios I've been previously been volunteering for the experience.

If that's my aim, my current kit isn't going to cut it. I love the images my 35 produces when it hits, but that's the key part: when it hits. Even for small-scale gigs, I need to trust my gear to produce consistent results.

That thought process has led me to considering the 16-55 zoom. I know the 18-55 is also an option, but the shallower depth of field at longer FLs, the faster autofocus (which is a large part of why I can't just work with my 35mm) and the weather sealing (it rains almost every photowalk here in the UK) skews the balance for me. Besides, since I mostly photograph people, I prefer wider apertures over the slower shutter speeds enabled by the OIS. I can find the 16-55 for around £650 used, and can sell my old Canon f4 L zoom which I haven't used since I started with Fuji.

My main concern here is the implications of that decision for the rest of my kit. Alongside event work, portraiture's very important to me, and to most that would scream "56". However, considering I already have the 35 and perhaps the 16-55, it would feel too redundant FL-wise. A "final" kit I'm considering is the 35mm f1.4, the 16-55mm f2.8, and 90mm f2 (which would give me the reach I occasionally need for larger events and telephoto landscape), and would be within my budget. I wonder whether the 35 + 90 combo for traditional portraiture, along with the zoom for environmental shots, would be enough (without one of the 56s)?

I would love the 56 1.2, but from what I hear, its autofocus might just compound the problem I have with the 35, and not having two Fuji bodies (only a Canon as backup), I don't think that'd be versatile enough for event work...

Anyways, I apologise for the ramble I've gone on. Would love some advice and thoughts from others who've perhaps had the same dilemma.

Hi Hikari,

I would suggest you get the 90mm and either the 56 or the 50 or the 60mm.  I would think the Brick is too heavy and also the 2.8 would probably not be great when it comes to event work, especially when it gets dark. This would also place the 60mm at the lower end, both because of its similar 2.8 but also because of its AF which is not stellar.

If you can afford the 56mm + the 90mm I think that in conjunction with your 35mm f1.4, you should be in a great place. the 50mm f2 could be a good (cheaper) alternative to the 56mm too.

Several of your replies mention that (say) the 90mm f2 doesn't have stabilisation - none of the primes they mention nor the 16-55 f2.8 have stabilisation so I'm not sure what they're suggesting really. The fact is, you can use a stabilised 50-140 f2.8 or 90mm f2 (1 stop faster) or 16-55mm f2.8 - all great suggestions but when it comes down to it you need enough shutter speed to stop motion in possibly low light - stabilisation won't cut it in those situations although still useful to have. Faster apertures and higher ISOs are the answer - unless resorting to atmosphere destroying flash.

I would suggest a second body - with IBIS - for those situations when stabilisation will help. I also believe your initial thought was good 16-55mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4 and 90mm f2 + an X-H1 if you can swing it for stabilising of the one zoom and primes. (You do need a backup body.)

BTW have you updated the FW to latest on the XT2? The AF of the slower lenses is improved and even better, latest FW for the XH1 (and XT3) both benefit from yet a further increase in AF speed with 35mm f1.4, 60mm f2.4 etc.

Vic

Thanks for the reply.

I feel it may be difficult to simultaneously get a lens setup and a second body at this point. Keep in mind, my initial aim for paid work is probably at a much lower level than most of the professionals or semi-pros here. I would start work for small university-related societies or teams, and perhaps work my way up from there, but I don't have the budget for a full two body professional kit (and any potential employers at my level would not expect one).

That said, I do fully understand the need for a backup. My X-T2 has double card slots, so I'm safe in that regard, and in terms of bodies I have my old Canon and several primes I bring along just in case. I am considering an X-H generation body in the future though, if / when I take up larger gigs.

With the X-T2, I believe my firmware is at 4.1 on the body (and while 4.2 is out, I've heard it only changes minor things), so things are probably working as intended. It may just be my focus technique, but...

ViMa wrote:

Hi Hikari,

I would suggest you get the 90mm and either the 56 or the 50 or the 60mm. I would think the Brick is too heavy and also the 2.8 would probably not be great when it comes to event work, especially when it gets dark. This would also place the 60mm at the lower end, both because of its similar 2.8 but also because of its AF which is not stellar.

If you can afford the 56mm + the 90mm I think that in conjunction with your 35mm f1.4, you should be in a great place. the 50mm f2 could be a good (cheaper) alternative to the 56mm too.

I think it is funny when people that don't have the 16-55 keep talking about how it is too heavy. Gheeeez. Try one out, and you will see.

As for the OP's question, X-T2 is perfectly paired with 16-55. If you are interested in indoor event photography, you need a flash system. Godox (I hope I spelled that correctly) has Fuji compatible flash systems and they are relatively inexpensive. I don't have one as I really like to rely on existing light for indoor work and yes, I have good technique when it comes to hand holding my camera and RED BADGE brilliant lens.

Check it out if you can, prior to purchase. I did, and was amazed at the almost hyperbolic comments of the size and weight of the 16-55 coming from almost exclusively those that have never checked out the lens in the first place. The Great Greg Johnson, of San Antone fame, bashed the crap out of this awesome zoom until he eventually got one! Now he can't stop talking about it...at least until he gets is new Fuji MF rig.

That's good to hear. Heaviness was a slight concern, but as it has very similar weight to the 24-105 which I've used in the past, I should be able to handle it.

Regarding flashes, I suppose I should get a few in case I need them. I personally dislike the artificial look they create, but in some particularly dark venues I could see them being particularly useful.

How do you find hand-holding the 16-55 in dark conditions? I find that anything less than 1/125th often causes motion blur in people (thus why I don't prioritise stabilization), but I've only used stabilised zooms in the past.

hotaruhikari wrote:

That's good to hear. Heaviness was a slight concern, but as it has very similar weight to the 24-105 which I've used in the past, I should be able to handle it.

Regarding flashes, I suppose I should get a few in case I need them. I personally dislike the artificial look they create, but in some particularly dark venues I could see them being particularly useful.

How do you find hand-holding the 16-55 in dark conditions? I find that anything less than 1/125th often causes motion blur in people (thus why I don't prioritise stabilization), but I've only used stabilised zooms in the past.

The weight provides for additional stability in-hand. As for motion blur, can't get away from that indoors, or outdoors in low light. I have plenty of very good images that have been taken in low light - both outside and inside. Pixel peeping may prove there to be some blur, but, I print regularly in larger sizes and don't have any problems with my results. I would say that I don't put myself in indoor low-light situations that often...but my needs are different than yours. I don't do indoor events, hence the suggestion I posed that you should look into flash photog. You may not like the color-cast, but clients must like sharp indoor images of people. And, I think that you can use colored filters on the flash to achieve a more natural look (?). Again, I am no expert.

Some pros do portraiture work with existing light and a tripod only, some use artificial light. Find something that works for you and is representative of what you are trying to convey as a photographer.

hotaruhikari wrote:

That's good to hear. Heaviness was a slight concern, but as it has very similar weight to the 24-105 which I've used in the past, I should be able to handle it.

Regarding flashes, I suppose I should get a few in case I need them. I personally dislike the artificial look they create, but in some particularly dark venues I could see them being particularly useful.

How do you find hand-holding the 16-55 in dark conditions? I find that anything less than 1/125th often causes motion blur in people (thus why I don't prioritise stabilization), but I've only used stabilised zooms in the past.

There are occasional situations where OIS would be nice, but I’m almost always around  1/125” or higher (1/60” is usually ok too). I use it with the Meike handgrips on my X-T2 and XT20 without issue. The size and heft of the 16-55 (not nearly as big or heavy as people make it out to be) helps make it easy to hold steady. On the 50-140 the OIS is very helpful.

lewiedude2 wrote:

ViMa wrote:

Hi Hikari,

I would suggest you get the 90mm and either the 56 or the 50 or the 60mm. I would think the Brick is too heavy and also the 2.8 would probably not be great when it comes to event work, especially when it gets dark. This would also place the 60mm at the lower end, both because of its similar 2.8 but also because of its AF which is not stellar.

If you can afford the 56mm + the 90mm I think that in conjunction with your 35mm f1.4, you should be in a great place. the 50mm f2 could be a good (cheaper) alternative to the 56mm too.

I think it is funny when people that don't have the 16-55 keep talking about how it is too heavy. Gheeeez. Try one out, and you will see.

As for the OP's question, X-T2 is perfectly paired with 16-55. If you are interested in indoor event photography, you need a flash system. Godox (I hope I spelled that correctly) has Fuji compatible flash systems and they are relatively inexpensive. I don't have one as I really like to rely on existing light for indoor work and yes, I have good technique when it comes to hand holding my camera and RED BADGE brilliant lens.

Check it out if you can, prior to purchase. I did, and was amazed at the almost hyperbolic comments of the size and weight of the 16-55 coming from almost exclusively those that have never checked out the lens in the first place. The Great Greg Johnson, of San Antone fame, bashed the crap out of this awesome zoom until he eventually got one! Now he can't stop talking about it...at least until he gets is new Fuji MF rig.

I think it's funny when people that don't have the Godox flash system keep talking about it. It is particularly strange when people talk about lenses and bodies they have or not have in this gear dedicated forum.

I did not wish to leave the impression that I see the brick as being a non-necessary lens. I have mentioned my wish to get one in more than one thread, and if I ever end up buying a zoom lens, this is the one i'll get. But whether the size and weight is a big deal or not, the fact does not change that it is bigger than even the XF 90mm which is itself quite big compared to the rest of the Fujifilm primes. Oh, and before you dismiss my opinion and suggestion to OP - who asked a question in order to get different opinions and suggestions from different people - for not owning the XF 90mm either (how could I say it is big. I don't own it), I am in a similar position to OP, wanting to venture into similar kinds of photography, and I for one have decided to proceed with the XF 90mm first.

hotaruhikari wrote:

That's good to hear. Heaviness was a slight concern, but as it has very similar weight to the 24-105 which I've used in the past, I should be able to handle it.

Regarding flashes, I suppose I should get a few in case I need them. I personally dislike the artificial look they create, but in some particularly dark venues I could see them being particularly useful.

How do you find hand-holding the 16-55 in dark conditions? I find that anything less than 1/125th often causes motion blur in people (thus why I don't prioritise stabilization), but I've only used stabilised zooms in the past.

I wanted to get the TT685F because I had read somewhere that the TT350F is too weak a flash. Folks in this forum kindly suggested that I go for the TT350F instead. Apparently the bigger one is a bit too big for the X-T2 and they say that the TT350F is good enough a first flash. There is also the V350F option with a rechargeable battery. At the moment they cost about 120 quid.

lewiedude2 wrote:

ViMa wrote:

Hi Hikari,

I would suggest you get the 90mm and either the 56 or the 50 or the 60mm. I would think the Brick is too heavy and also the 2.8 would probably not be great when it comes to event work, especially when it gets dark. This would also place the 60mm at the lower end, both because of its similar 2.8 but also because of its AF which is not stellar.

If you can afford the 56mm + the 90mm I think that in conjunction with your 35mm f1.4, you should be in a great place. the 50mm f2 could be a good (cheaper) alternative to the 56mm too.

I think it is funny when people that don't have the 16-55 keep talking about how it is too heavy. Gheeeez. Try one out, and you will see.

As for the OP's question, X-T2 is perfectly paired with 16-55. If you are interested in indoor event photography, you need a flash system. Godox (I hope I spelled that correctly) has Fuji compatible flash systems and they are relatively inexpensive. I don't have one as I really like to rely on existing light for indoor work and yes, I have good technique when it comes to hand holding my camera and RED BADGE brilliant lens.

Check it out if you can, prior to purchase. I did, and was amazed at the almost hyperbolic comments of the size and weight of the 16-55 coming from almost exclusively those that have never checked out the lens in the first place. The Great Greg Johnson, of San Antone fame, bashed the crap out of this awesome zoom until he eventually got one! Now he can't stop talking about it...at least until he gets is new Fuji MF rig.

++++1. I waited way too long to get this lens, and it is now absolutely my “go to” when not shooting long. All the discussion about weight definitely put me off for a while, however, IMHO, it pairs well with either of the two cameras I own: the X-T2 or X-H1 (slightly better with the X-H1 because of IBIS).  I find the weight to be a complete non issue.

Unfortunately, the nickname Greg gave it — the Brick — does it a disservice and alas, has caught on here.

ViMa wrote:

lewiedude2 wrote:

ViMa wrote:

Hi Hikari,

I would suggest you get the 90mm and either the 56 or the 50 or the 60mm. I would think the Brick is too heavy and also the 2.8 would probably not be great when it comes to event work, especially when it gets dark. This would also place the 60mm at the lower end, both because of its similar 2.8 but also because of its AF which is not stellar.

If you can afford the 56mm + the 90mm I think that in conjunction with your 35mm f1.4, you should be in a great place. the 50mm f2 could be a good (cheaper) alternative to the 56mm too.

I think it is funny when people that don't have the 16-55 keep talking about how it is too heavy. Gheeeez. Try one out, and you will see.

As for the OP's question, X-T2 is perfectly paired with 16-55. If you are interested in indoor event photography, you need a flash system. Godox (I hope I spelled that correctly) has Fuji compatible flash systems and they are relatively inexpensive. I don't have one as I really like to rely on existing light for indoor work and yes, I have good technique when it comes to hand holding my camera and RED BADGE brilliant lens.

Check it out if you can, prior to purchase. I did, and was amazed at the almost hyperbolic comments of the size and weight of the 16-55 coming from almost exclusively those that have never checked out the lens in the first place. The Great Greg Johnson, of San Antone fame, bashed the crap out of this awesome zoom until he eventually got one! Now he can't stop talking about it...at least until he gets is new Fuji MF rig.

I think it's funny when people that don't have the Godox flash system keep talking about it. It is particularly strange when people talk about lenses and bodies they have or not have in this gear dedicated forum.

I did not wish to leave the impression that I see the brick as being a non-necessary lens. I have mentioned my wish to get one in more than one thread, and if I ever end up buying a zoom lens, this is the one i'll get. But whether the size and weight is a big deal or not, the fact does not change that it is bigger than even the XF 90mm which is itself quite big compared to the rest of the Fujifilm primes. Oh, and before you dismiss my opinion and suggestion to OP - who asked a question in order to get different opinions and suggestions from different people - for not owning the XF 90mm either (how could I say it is big. I don't own it), I am in a similar position to OP, wanting to venture into similar kinds of photography, and I for one have decided to proceed with the XF 90mm first.

The 90 and 16-55 aren’t going to be used for the same thing anyway. The 90 falls into the range of the 50-140 and I don’t think there is any question about which of those is better for indoor event photography.