Lens Advice

Hi all,

I'm not a frequent forum poster and I usually spend my time reading through previous threads, but this time I couldn't find the information I was looking for. I have spent a number of hours reading reviews and comparisons, and have also tried many lenses in shops.

I'm an amateur photographer and I currently own an XT-1, the 16mm 1.4 and the 18-55. I've recently saved a bit of money to spend on new kit and I was wondering what your recommendations were. Up till now, I've mainly been doing travel and landscape photography (hence the addition of the 16) but also enjoy street and architecture. I'm interested in macro and wildlife although I've never really had the equipment to do it properly, and I'd like to start taking casual portraits too.

Generally, I'm hoping to extend my range on the long end, and as I'm happy to go out in the rain or snow, I'd prefer WR lenses. I also use a tripod as little as possible as I've got a fairly steady hand, but OIS is always a bonus. I'm open to the idea of buying and using the 1.4x TC on the various lenses that support it.

I was torn between two possible routes - the 56 plus the 80 or just the 50-140 - but I'd welcome other suggestions. I've seen some beautiful results from the 90 too and like to shoot wide open when I can. I'm happy to carry heavy lenses around, but I am slightly worried about the length and balance of the 50-140.

Thanks!

Reskr wrote:

Hi all,

I'm not a frequent forum poster and I usually spend my time reading through previous threads, but this time I couldn't find the information I was looking for. I have spent a number of hours reading reviews and comparisons, and have also tried many lenses in shops.

I'm an amateur photographer and I currently own an XT-1, the 16mm 1.4 and the 18-55. I've recently saved a bit of money to spend on new kit and I was wondering what your recommendations were. Up till now, I've mainly been doing travel and landscape photography (hence the addition of the 16) but also enjoy street and architecture. I'm interested in macro and wildlife although I've never really had the equipment to do it properly, and I'd like to start taking casual portraits too.

Generally, I'm hoping to extend my range on the long end, and as I'm happy to go out in the rain or snow, I'd prefer WR lenses. I also use a tripod as little as possible as I've got a fairly steady hand, but OIS is always a bonus. I'm open to the idea of buying and using the 1.4x TC on the various lenses that support it.

I was torn between two possible routes - the 56 plus the 80 or just the 50-140 - but I'd welcome other suggestions. I've seen some beautiful results from the 90 too and like to shoot wide open when I can. I'm happy to carry heavy lenses around, but I am slightly worried about the length and balance of the 50-140.

Thanks!

Hi. If you are no macro professional, I would suggest you get the 60. It would do both the 56 and the 80 job just fine. It's a stunning lens and it's actually quite cheap. You could then add an extra lens: maybe that 50-140 you want, or the 90mm.

Another option, since you like architecture too, would be to get the 12mm samyang/rokinon (with some luck about 200$), the 60mm for portraits and macro (250-270$ including the extension tubes) and if you have extra money, look into investing into a newer body.

The 50-140 is short for wildlife and too big for macro, even more with the extension tubes. And for the landscapes you do, no real need for 2.8.

With the money from the 50-140, you can buy the 60mm 2.4 macro, and the 55-200.

None are WR, but more versatile. If you really want WR, macro and telephoto in a single lens, then maybe go for the 80mm macro with the 1.4x extender (not sure the x2 will work fine with the 80mm). It does portraits also, but you need some space to step back, specially indoors.

I own the 56, which is a great lens, but have u considered the 50 mm F2? Much cheaper and very compact. Then u could decide if you need or want a macro lens or need some reach.

You will need more than one lens, to go from macro to wildlife.

If you can, rent before committing.

I know what you mean about heft and balance concern re 50-140, but I found it surprisingly nice to wield.     I've only used the 2x TC once on a visit to the zoo, where it performed well.   It's quite outstanding, and its OIS is very enabling.   I'm torn between primes and zooms for low light inclement work (would rather not require a zoom), but as zooms go, this one is OUTstanding.    Good luck deciding which way to go.

. 1/25s f/2.8 ISO 5000 115mm

. 1/250s f/5.6 ISO 1000, 280mm (2xTC)

Another option you could consider is getting one of those really nice prime's and adding the XC 55-230.  It is dirt cheap but fun to play with and might give you a chance to experiment and see how often you use the telephoto.  That might tell you if you are wishing for more reach, need a faster lens, etc.  I think it is a lens you might hang on to even if you upgrade as it is just so small and light.

The 100-400 is fantastic, my favorite lens, but i use the cheap XC lens almost as often.

I'd shoot for the 80mm macro and the 55-200.   The 50-140 is really fabulous and with the 24mp Fuji bodies, you can crop pretty significantly and still end up with a very nice image to offset the 140mm, or you can use one of the extenders, but then you lose out on the short (50mm end).   However, as you are using the X-T1, your cropping ability isn't quite there - so I'd go with the 80/55-200 combo.

Whatever you choose - have fun shooting!

I’ve never purchased a lens used? What are the chances that there could be something wrong with the lands?

I love the 56 mm lens as I have kids and I shoot a lot of pictures of them. But it’s a specialty lens, it’s a heavy-ish lens in the Fuji lineup. Usually I just take my camera with the 35 mm F2. I wish I owned the 50 mm F2 I would probably use it more. But if I know we have a special event or if my kids going to be dressed up I will grab the 56 mm.

I also have the 55 to 200 mm lens and I do like it.

Reskr wrote:

If you can, rent before committing.

I'm aware this is great advice, but I'm not sure I have the time.

Do you have a deadline? You can get a high number of views and opinions from here, but only using the gear for a while will help you to make a sound decision.

Thanks again.

Reskr wrote:

Thank you for all the suggestions so far. I'd got the impression that the AF on the 60 was pretty slow, and the bokeh was fairly unimpressive (at least compared to the 56). I'll check it out more carefully.

The 50-140 is short for wildlife and too big for macro, even more with the extension tubes.

Thanks for clarifying this. I'd originally envisioned it as a do-it-all lens, but it really is a bit short for wildlife. I'll look into renting the 100-400 if I go on any serious trips.

I would suggest you get the 60...

With the money from the 50-140, you can buy the 60mm 2.4 macro...

Have u considered the 50 mm F2?

I've read a lot of very positive reviews about the 56 and the 80, but none of you seem particularly keen to suggest them. Is there something I'm missing? Some of the test photos I took in the shop on the 80 really blew me away, and I guess I was sort of hoping to purchase one (or more) of the more expensive lenses during the rebate period.

If you can, rent before committing.

I'm aware this is great advice, but I'm not sure I have the time.

Thanks again.

I've actually found most macro lenses make great lenses for portraits. (Head shots, usually due to their focal length unless you have a lot of room to back up.) The 80 makes for about 120mm equivalent FOV which is 15mm shy of the traditional 135 that some people love shooting with but it should still yield good results.

The 56 is also a fantastic portrait lens. Someone else mentioned it is a specialized lens which I would say is short sighted.  I find it to be one of those lenses that once I mount it, I need a compelling reason to swap it out. (Usually when I'm needing something wider like the 35 or 16.) I use it to shoot everything from musicians in dark jazz clubs to landscapes. And yes, it's close to the 55 end of the 18-55 that I also have but frankly I only ever drag the 18-55 out when I am traveling light or I'll be putting the camera in a rain sleeve for the day of walking around in the wet.

I said it is a specialized lens because it weighs over 400 grams and the focus is pretty slow, also even though it's a 1.2 it hunts in dim light.   It's a thick lens and I notice it on the camera.  You need to understand what subjects you plan on shooting with that lens.  Kids generally move quickly and with a 1.2 the DOF is going to be about 2 inches at 5 feet so pretty hard to nail focus.  A 35 mm F2 is much more versatile due to the wider view, faster shutter speed, much lighter and smaller form factor.

Meetmer wrote:

I said it is a specialized lens because it weighs over 400 grams and the focus is pretty slow, also even though it's a 1.2 it hunts in dim light. It's a thick lens and I notice it on the camera. You need to understand what subjects you plan on shooting with that lens. Kids generally move quickly and with a 1.2 the DOF is going to be about 2 inches at 5 feet so pretty hard to nail focus. A 35 mm F2 is much more versatile due to the wider view, faster shutter speed, much lighter and smaller form factor.

Ok, what you mean to say is that FOR YOU you see it as a specialized lens. I don't see it as such. It's all relative.

400 grams? You throw that number out there like it's lead. To me, it's still an extremely light lens. Thick? Again, relative. I can fit it mounted to an XTxx body and the 35 1.4 into a bag that's about the size of a small purse. To me, this is quite small and compact for what it is.

I've had no issue shooting images of my niece. I've had no issues shooting in dark jazz clubs. We're talking ISO 12800, f 1.2-1.4 dark. No issues with focus speed.

So while you might not be able to handle shooting with a lens does not mean it is specialized. Some of us handle it quite well.

I stand by my opinion.  Who wants to shoot at 12,800 ISO?  Clearly you haven't experienced what it's like using the light Fujicrons.  YOUR opinion is clearly YOURs.

Meetmer wrote:

I’ve never purchased a lens used? What are the chances that there could be something wrong with the lands?

I got the 60mm and 14mm (and the 7artisans 55mm) used and all were in excellent condition. Basically as new.

Meetmer wrote:

I stand by my opinion. Who wants to shoot at 12,800 ISO? Clearly you haven't experienced what it's like using the light Fujicrons. YOUR opinion is clearly YOURs.

If someone can point out that something isn't so specialized, that's not really opinion. It's pointing out your lack creativity or a narrow understanding. And I point out ISO 12800 because where I'm shooting, it's pretty much necessary WITH a very wide aperture in order to shoot musicians hand held. Which also should tell you a lot about what kind of conditions I'm NOT having focusing issues with. You can stand by your opinion but in the light of my experience, your opinion looks pretty wrong.