Fujifilm lenses: Selling 18-55mm f2.8-f4 & 60mm f2.4 to fund 80mm f2.8

Dear Fujifilm shooters,

Please let me hear your thoughts as I am looking to selling my 18-55mm f2.8-f4 and 60mm f2.4 to fund a NEW 80mm f2.8.

Before you read on, this is how/what I usually shoot:

• Food (dishes, tablescape, close up, etc)
• Actions of food preparation, #handsinframe, etc
• On location, mostly indoor, during restaurant operating hours half the time (not studio). Having a speedlite and/or reflector is a luxury.

My other lenses are 35mm f1.4 for general indoor purpose, 14mm f2.8 for restaurant interior. I shoot with XT3 and X100s.

I tried the 80mm f2.8 the other day and love the AF and IQ. It can even double as a portrait lens.

So I am thinking about whether it's worthy...

1. Sacrificing the lightweight and portrait capability of 60mm f2.4
2. Sacrificing versatility and favourable video capability of the 18-55mm f2.8-f4
3. Topping up additional $500 or so to make up the difference

...to acquire the 80mm f2.8 that boost better AF and better IQ, with advantages of OIS and WR in exchange for higher cost, significant increase in bulk/weight, and lost of focal length versatility?

Please let me know what you think!

moodyk wrote:

Dear Fujifilm shooters,

Please let me hear your thoughts as I am looking to selling my 18-55mm f2.8-f4 and 60mm f2.4 to fund a NEW 80mm f2.8.

Before you read on, this is how/what I usually shoot:

• Food (dishes, tablescape, close up, etc)
• Actions of food preparation, #handsinframe, etc
• On location, mostly indoor, during restaurant operating hours half the time (not studio). Having a speedlite and/or reflector is a luxury.

My other lenses are 35mm f1.4 for general indoor purpose, 14mm f2.8 for restaurant interior. I shoot with XT3 and X100s.

I tried the 80mm f2.8 the other day and love the AF and IQ. It can even double as a portrait lens.

So I am thinking about whether it's worthy...

1. Sacrificing the lightweight and portrait capability of 60mm f2.4
2. Sacrificing versatility and favourable video capability of the 18-55mm f2.8-f4
3. Topping up additional $500 or so to make up the difference

...to acquire the 80mm f2.8 that boost better AF and better IQ, with advantages of OIS and WR in exchange for higher cost, significant increase in bulk/weight, and lost of focal length versatility?

Please let me know what you think!

Hi mate. Do you need 1:1 macro? As far as I can tell, food photography doesn't.

I could not give up a lens as fun and versatile as the 60mm. My suggestion would be that if you wish for something longer, faster and with superior IQ, you should go for the cheaper 90mm. The f2.8 of the 80mm is going to make it even more difficult to shot in low light and while the IBIS and fast AF will help, if you're shooting actions, unless you want the shots to be blurry, you still are going to want faster shutter speeds.

Between the 80mm and the 90mm, unless you absolutely need the 1:1 macro capabilities, I would suggest you go for the latter.

For low light shots, you may wish to consider the 56mm f1.2 or even the 50mm f2. Both should work great for indoors environmental portraits including action. Another relatively cheap alternative would be the 35mm f1.4 or even the 35mm f2 though you may have to go closer.

That 80mm looks amazing, but I really don't think it's worth the swap, or the money, unless you absolutely need what it was made for.

ViMa wrote:

moodyk wrote:

Dear Fujifilm shooters,

Please let me hear your thoughts as I am looking to selling my 18-55mm f2.8-f4 and 60mm f2.4 to fund a NEW 80mm f2.8.

Before you read on, this is how/what I usually shoot:

• Food (dishes, tablescape, close up, etc)
• Actions of food preparation, #handsinframe, etc
• On location, mostly indoor, during restaurant operating hours half the time (not studio). Having a speedlite and/or reflector is a luxury.

My other lenses are 35mm f1.4 for general indoor purpose, 14mm f2.8 for restaurant interior. I shoot with XT3 and X100s.

I tried the 80mm f2.8 the other day and love the AF and IQ. It can even double as a portrait lens.

So I am thinking about whether it's worthy...

1. Sacrificing the lightweight and portrait capability of 60mm f2.4
2. Sacrificing versatility and favourable video capability of the 18-55mm f2.8-f4
3. Topping up additional $500 or so to make up the difference

...to acquire the 80mm f2.8 that boost better AF and better IQ, with advantages of OIS and WR in exchange for higher cost, significant increase in bulk/weight, and lost of focal length versatility?

Please let me know what you think!

Hi mate. Do you need 1:1 macro? As far as I can tell, food photography doesn't.

I could not give up a lens as fun and versatile as the 60mm. My suggestion would be that if you wish for something longer, faster and with superior IQ, you should go for the cheaper 90mm. The f2.8 of the 80mm is going to make it even more difficult to shot in low light and while the IBIS and fast AF will help, if you're shooting actions, unless you want the shots to be blurry, you still are going to want faster shutter speeds.

The 80mm is great in low light precisely because of its OIS which enables it to outperform the 90 except in the case of moving subjects. My salads and meat stay on my plate... Little action there. With the 90 you'd lose dof by opening up to f2 and still wouldn't get lowlight results as sharp as with the 80, where you can shoot at 1/15th second handheld and remain sharp.

The 80 is a good choice for the photographic needs of the OP. It's a shame to have to sacrifice those two lenses to get it though.

Between the 80mm and the 90mm, unless you absolutely need the 1:1 macro capabilities, I would suggest you go for the latter.

For low light shots, you may wish to consider the 56mm f1.2 or even the 50mm f2. Both should work great for indoors environmental portraits including action. Another relatively cheap alternative would be the 35mm f1.4 or even the 35mm f2 though you may have to go closer.

That 80mm looks amazing, but I really don't think it's worth the swap, or the money, unless you absolutely need what it was made for.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Vittorio
_________________________________________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155724624@N06/

bowportes wrote:

The 80mm is great in low light precisely because of its OIS which enables it to outperform the 90 except in the case of moving subjects. My salads and meat stay on my plate... Little action there. With the 90 you'd lose dof by opening up to f2 and still wouldn't get lowlight results as sharp as with the 80, where you can shoot at 1/15th second handheld and remain sharp.

The 80 is a good choice for the photographic needs of the OP. It's a shame to have to sacrifice those two lenses to get it though.

OP was quite clear that food photography is only part of the kind of photography he does. I wonder whether the 80mm with its slow aperture, long focal length etc. would help with either 'on location' or 'action in the kitchen' photography, especially when in order to get it he'd have to give up at least one more versatile lens.

If OIS is such a big deal maybe OP should sell his camera body and get himself an X-H1.

JayPhizzt wrote:

I have the 80mm and it's the best lens I've ever used and owned. World class IQ, very fast AF, great OIS, weather sealing and of course excellent build quality.

It's also a very versatile lens that can be used for several types of photography.

Before I had the 80mm I also had the 60/2.4 and while that is also a great lens, the 80mm is definitely better in every way(except maybe when it comes to the weight).

I don't do much video, but I think the 80mm would be excellent for it. Not just because of the fantastic IQ, but also because of the very efficient OIS.

The only minor downside with the lens is like you mentioned the weight.

The minor downside is weight.

The major downside is the cost, that I am considering trading two versatile lenses for it

Thanks for vote of confidence for the 80mm

ViMa wrote:

bowportes wrote:

The 80mm is great in low light precisely because of its OIS which enables it to outperform the 90 except in the case of moving subjects. My salads and meat stay on my plate... Little action there. With the 90 you'd lose dof by opening up to f2 and still wouldn't get lowlight results as sharp as with the 80, where you can shoot at 1/15th second handheld and remain sharp.

The 80 is a good choice for the photographic needs of the OP. It's a shame to have to sacrifice those two lenses to get it though.

OP was quite clear that food photography is only part of the kind of photography he does. I wonder whether the 80mm with its slow aperture, long focal length etc. would help with either 'on location' or 'action in the kitchen' photography, especially when in order to get it he'd have to give up at least one more versatile lens.

If OIS is such a big deal maybe OP should sell his camera body and get himself an X-H1.

Thanks for your input!

Well, high IQ, AF performance & low light capability are my priority, since I feel both 18-55mm (IQ) and 60mm (AF & OIS) lacks respectively (in comparison).

I am just not so certain in losing the versatility of the above two lenses and parting some money if I were to trade up.

The reason why I didn't consider the 90mm is because of the Min Focus Distance (60cm) as compared to the 25cm of the 80cm, even though you are right, I don't exactly need the 1:1 magnification.

Decisions, decisions.

bowportes wrote:

The 80mm is great in low light precisely because of its OIS which enables it to outperform the 90 except in the case of moving subjects. My salads and meat stay on my plate... Little action there. With the 90 you'd lose dof by opening up to f2 and still wouldn't get lowlight results as sharp as with the 80, where you can shoot at 1/15th second handheld and remain sharp.

The 80 is a good choice for the photographic needs of the OP. It's a shame to have to sacrifice those two lenses to get it though.

It would be a real shame to have to trade in the 18-55mm, indeed. But I like to keep my gears to a minimal.

In your opinion, apart from wider angles (versatility and weight), is there anything that the 18-55mm excels in that the 80mm can't do?

I've only just bought the 60mm so still in the honeymoon phase but I wouldn't want to part with it. It's light, very sharp and versatile. Having a shorter FL it is going to be easier to use indoors for portraits.

I  also like the idea of the 80mm and may well get one but I wouldn't want to have to have it at the expense of the 60mm. I don't think they sell for that high an amount so you would lose a fair bit. Why not just save up for a bit longer?

Regarding the 18-55, I have one as well. I also just bought a 16-55 and I will be comparing the two to decide whether to sell the former. If I didn't have the 16-55 I wouldn't want to sell that either.

No, stick with the 60mm.  Honestly, unless you will gain a huge amount by the IS.

The 80 macro is so great I am not going to suggest that you don't buy it.  I have it and love it.  BUT....it is a big and heavy lens.  I never travel with it - it just too heavy and takes up too much room in the bag.  I also have the 60 macro and I travel with it all the time.  It is so versatile and can double as a great portrait lens as well.  I could live without the 18-55 given some of your primes - but why? It too is a great travel lens.  Why don't you keep these lenses and add the 80 macro when you have saved up for it.  If you get it - you will love it.

For your uses the 60mm sounds ideal to me.  Close focus and portrait capability, and you're not trying to capture birds in flight so focus is quick enough.

I'd just sell the zoom and get a 23 or 35 f2 for wider kitchen action shots.