16, 23, 35 and 50. Pick Two!

A poll.

I currently have the 23 f2 and 35f2. They feel a little too close together if you ask me. And now with the 16 added to the collection (I really love these little WR lenses) I am thinking of reconfiguring the focal length combination.

I’d like to keep just two lenses for now, for several reasons. Let me know which two you would choose, and leave comments below.

16mm f2.8

23mm f2

35mm f2

50mm f2

pokesfan wrote:

A poll.

I currently have the 23 f2 and 35f2. They feel a little too close together if you ask me. And now with the 16 added to the collection (I really love these little WR lenses) I am thinking of reconfiguring the focal length combination.

I’d like to keep just two lenses for now, for several reasons. Let me know which two you would choose, and leave comments below.

16mm f2.8

23mm f2

35mm f2

50mm f2

That's a tough decision... Folks often talk about a trinity of primes for good reason. You have the 23 f/2 and the 35 f/2, so you must be pretty well aware of the differences which I found considerable in the brief time I had the 35mm.

I voted for the 23 and 50 because I don't know enough yet about the 16mm f/2.8, but the little we've seen so far does make it very promising. As much as I do like the 23mm, I have to say that the 27 f/2.8 is a more useful lens for me. It is the one, true "normal" lens for Fuji, and its bokeh is so lovely.

So, if I was asked for a trinity - I'd almost certainly name the 16/2.8, 27 and 50 as the way to travel light and truly cover all the bases. If I was in another system, having only one lens faster than f/2.8 would be troubling, but with Fuji lenses sharpness wide open is a given - so f/2.8 is good enough at the wide to normal end.

For me it is the 16 and 35mm. I already preordered the 16, and unless I cancel that, this is going to be 50% of my kit. My first Fujifilm lens was a 23mm (on the X100F) and it's great too, but I"m glad I ended up going the other way. This way I also end up using the stunning 60mm, which I find much preferrable to the 50mm.

Wholly depends on what you shoot - which you haven't talked around.

You'll only have people giving their opinion here, not what's best for your needs.

Hi, I voted for the 23/f2 and 50/f2, mainly because they were my choices of purchase.

However, I agree that the trinity would be more useful. To these two I will consider the forthcoming 16/f2.8. That would make a high quality, light, small travel package with my XT3.

Easy: a standard lens and a wide companion. So 16&35.

I already have the 18/2 so I chose 23 and 50.

Hi,

Lens choice is entirely personal.  It depends on your subjects and your compositional preferences, so what's good for one photographer may not be good for another.....

Personally I think your first premise - that the four are too close together - is wrong.  To me that they are significantly different.  The steps are big enough to make it worthwhile to carry all four.  Except I substitute the 60mm for the 50mm.  There's nothing wrong with the 50mm - it's a great lens - but I like the 60's close up capability, and it's still a very small lens.

Cheers, Rod

Hello,

I would go for the 16 and 50 mm f/2.

I have a Sony a6000 with Sigma 16mm f/1.4 and Sony 50mm f/1.8 and they do a great job.

I think there are two major alternative ways to go if you have to select two lenses and one for going to the extremes. The first two choices have to do on which close to normal lens do you prefer. Do you like the 23mm or the 35mm for your general photography? If you select the 23mm then 50mm is a more obvious select. You go with a more versatile lens covering even some "tight" landscapes and a lens to come obviously closer and usable for portraits. If you choose the 35mm then the other lens must be the 16mm. You go with a wider lens for portraits but you get more FoV when you shoot landscapes with the other lens.

The third choice is quite odd but doable. You select 16mm and 50mm, selecting each way if you want really wide or really tight shots. 16mm is too wide for me for general photography.

But each of the above case includes the personal taste and based on what you shoot most. By having already 16mm and 35mm I would suggest beginning that way and see if that fits to you. Otherwise you can adjust your options.

Personally I choose in the poll 23mm and 50mm, as I am already familiar and like using a 35mm on FF. For wider landscapes I have chosen a 20mm lens. For tighter I wouldn't choose a 50mm, but a 85mm. Generally I suggest the difference of focal lengths to be at least near double.

Voted 23/2+35/2 because I use the 35/3 more often than the 50/2. If I only could own two different lenses it would be the 23/2, my main lens and the 56/1.2 my main portrait lens.

I do own the 16/1.4 and the 10-24/4, and still consider the new 16/2.8. I like the size, weight and balance. They are different lenses for different needs.

noggin2k1 wrote:

Wholly depends on what you shoot - which you haven't talked around.

You'll only have people giving their opinion here, not what's best for your needs.

That was definitely my goal, which is to hear other’s opinions and how they use the system. It can spark ideas.

As for my own shooting needs, I am mostly trying to capture photos of a toddler or sprinting dog these days. There could be changes to that in the future, but for now that’s the game.

This is great. Thank you everyone who participated in the poll. So far it is the 16/35 in the lead, followed by 23/50. This was kind of where I was headed in my mind (without saying so much in my post). However I am not sure if I like 16/35 or 23/50 better. I feel right now with 23/35 there is a lot of overlap in the two lenses, enough to where rather than reach for a lens change I find myself just taking a few steps back or forward because it’s quicker.

One reason I am limiting myself to two small lenses right now is because I can fit 1 extra lens in the bottom of my Thinktank digital holster. Any more weight or size would defeat the purpose for which I own the fuji, which is a quickly accessible camera for hiking. My subjects are usually my dog at a dead sprint or my 2 year old.

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

Lens choice is entirely personal. It depends on your subjects and your compositional preferences, so what's good for one photographer may not be good for another.....

Personally I think your first premise - that the four are too close together - is wrong. To me that they are significantly different. The steps are big enough to make it worthwhile to carry all four. Except I substitute the 60mm for the 50mm. There's nothing wrong with the 50mm - it's a great lens - but I like the 60's close up capability, and it's still a very small lens.

Cheers, Rod

Rod have you been hiding somewhere or have you only been a tad bored of the - mostly - same old, same old??

On your subject: the 50/2 does have some rather amazing demi-macro capabilities. For my liking this lens is often enough close enough.

I only took this shot to compare it to the Nikkor 55/3.5 Micro:

Did you get any of the heat over where you live?? Here in Auckland we seem to stay at 30 or below which in all fairness is plenty for me. heat that is ... not aperture or low light capabilities

Deed

Hi there Deed,

Yes I've been away (from the computer) a bit lately.  My partner and I are in the process of selling (our houses) and re-buying and so there has been some frenetic renovation and the stresses and strains of real estate dealing and moving.    So I haven't done much hiking, kayaking, cycling or anything much exciting.  It's been work and renovate every waking hour.  And thus almost no photography.  We're still in the midst of it all......

We had record temperatures in Adelaide back in January.  It was 47.7C at the Met Office in Adelaide, though that's not in the city centre, so they not ascribing that to Adelaide itself, which only got to 46.5......  It was 49C in Port Augusta.  Everything in the garden took an absolute beating.  And since then, life in other parts of Oz continues to be stricken by drought or tropical flood.  Luckily we have a right wing govt that has assured us all that  we don't need to do anything about global warming......

Cheers, Rod