Lens Advice

ViMa wrote:

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.

I bought the 16mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 and 55-200mm used. All of them in good condition. Been very pleased.

Shooting musicians in the dark , I would say , is a specialized use of a lens wouldn’t you? I would venture to guess that less than 1% of all photographers shoot musicians in the dark

Meetmer wrote:

Shooting musicians in the dark , I would say , is a specialized use of a lens wouldn’t you? I would venture to guess that less than 1% of all photographers shoot musicians in the dark

Except you're focusing so intently on that one use case I listed that you're missing the fact that I use it for a lot more than that (as do many other people with that lens) which still negates your argument that it's a specialized lens. Seriously, give it up. It's only a specialized lens if you are wearing blinders of denial. It's a very useful lens for every day shooting.

The other person can read all of our comments and use the advice as he sees fit.  I don't need to prove anything to you, really.

Meetmer wrote:

The other person can read all of our comments and use the advice as he sees fit. I don't need to prove anything to you, really.

That's odd. You sure were trying to convince me that the 56 is a specialized lens when I quite clearly illustrated it isn't. lol

Rmcp20 wrote:

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.

One of the finest wildlife photographers out there, Tom Mangelsen of Jackson Hole, WY would disagree with that. On a FF he recommends nothing longer than 300 and his go to lens is the 70-200.

http://www.jacksonholetraveler.com/article/tom-mangelsen-jackson-hole-photographer/

He's has produced a lot of wonderful wildlife shots by knowing his prey - which he identifies as the secret.

One such

https://www.mangelsen.com/legacy-reserve-collection/catch-of-the-day-legacy-reserve-collection-1698lr.html

If you don't mind carrying the weight the 50-150 is absolutely top notch.  Is the 90 at 90 better - slightly more so because it goes to f2.  Is the 56 at 56 better - slightly again because it is almost two stops faster and a little better rendering.  But the 50-140 is better at 50 than my 50 f2 is a 50.

It is heavy but it is a top notch lens and the only Fuji zoom I own or will own.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Rmcp20 wrote:

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.

One of the finest wildlife photographers out there, Tom Mangelsen of Jackson Hole, WY would disagree with that. On a FF he recommends nothing longer than 300 and his go to lens is the 70-200.

http://www.jacksonholetraveler.com/article/tom-mangelsen-jackson-hole-photographer/

He's has produced a lot of wonderful wildlife shots by knowing his prey - which he identifies as the secret.

One such

https://www.mangelsen.com/legacy-reserve-collection/catch-of-the-day-legacy-reserve-collection-1698lr.html

If you don't mind carrying the weight the 50-150 is absolutely top notch. Is the 90 at 90 better - slightly more so because it goes to f2. Is the 56 at 56 better - slightly again because it is almost two stops faster and a little better rendering. But the 50-140 is better at 50 than my 50 f2 is a 50.

It is heavy but it is a top notch lens and the only Fuji zoom I own or will own.

William Neill was one I've admired, with how a 70-200mm equiv. lens was put to use in the great outdoors.

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!

Why can’t you do macro on your 16 1.4? Fuji calls it a wide angle macro lens.

Reskr wrote:

Thank you all again for your ideas. I'm really glad I asked as otherwise I would've just followed the hype surrounding all these lenses and not really considered my actual needs. Checking through my photos over the last two years, I've found maybe a handful of shots over 50mm and an even smaller number of shots where I would've wanted anything approximating 80 or more. My interactions with wildlife tend to be by chance rather than deliberate, and while there is the possibility that I just don't bother trying to take photos outside of my equipment's capabilities, I think I'd be lying to myself if I said I'd use something like the 50-140 or the 80 a lot.

Do you have a deadline?

None, other than the end of the rebate period, but I'm returning to my home country for a few weeks next month and was hoping to purchase the new kit there.

Why can’t you do macro on your 16 1.4? Fuji calls it a wide angle macro lens.

You're absolutely right. I've had some really nice close-up shots with the 16 with really pleasing background blur.

In light of this, would a better path perhaps be to get the 56 to satisfy my desire for a portrait lens, and to update my body to the XT2 or XT3 to open up cropping room? If so, which would you recommend for someone who rarely takes video? I liked the look of the touch to focus on the XT3, but I'm not sure how much I'd use it as I almost always shoot using the viewfinder. Is the new processor significantly better?

I didn’t get the X-T3 because it doesn’t offer me anything that my X-T2 can’t do for the way I shoot. I bought a used X-E3 instead because I wanted smaller but I turned off the touchscreen functionality because it’s not for me. I’m a VF only guy myself. You can crop and still get great detail on the X-T2. If you want a portrait lens then get the 56, I opted for the 50 f2 instead and lenstip tests show the 50 f2 is Fuji’s sharpest lens to date. So if that and WR is important to you the 50 might be another viable option for you. Since the 16 is already a great macro/landscape/street/indoor/architecture lens then save your money and go for the 56 or 50 for portraits. But if you like bigger lenses then the 50-140 is also a great portrait lens and you won’t need the 56/50.

Reskr wrote:

... 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.

The 50-140 would be an excellent choice. The focal range is extremely versatile. It is razor sharp, fast focusing, and has very effective OIS. It's one of my favorite lenses for fast action, for people, and for landscapes. And the IQ starts high enough that even with the inevitable reduction in IQ when using a 1.4x TC, the end result is still quite good.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned to 55-200 but it is my choice when I'm traveling by air or hiking. Not as sharp or as fast as the 50-140 but still very good IQ and a very attractive size given its range. I took it and my 16-55 on a month-long trip through India last winter and it performed like a champ.

The 100-400 is a solid lens and the only choice when you need a focal length of 400mm. It is not, however, as good as the 50-140 in terms of just about any aspect of performance...IQ, speed, light gathering. I bought it for wildlife but I find myself using it more for landscapes. If I'm being honest, I feel like it should be better than it is given the price, the size, and IQ that competitors have been able to achieve with this same focal range. But I use it regularly and happily. If this is the focal range you really want then you've got one choice.

The 56 is great for portraits or any time you need a shallow DOF with beautiful rendering. I don't see it being as great a fit for the purposes you mention. It doesn't focus particularly fast. It lacks OIS. You could use it for landscapes but I'm not sure it offers any advantage over, say, the 50-140. It would certainly be less flexible.

The 80, the only lens I'll discuss that I don't own and use, is great for macro (if I may state the obvious) but it's a compromise for most anything else. It's razor sharp but it has one of the least pleasing bokehs of the Fuji prime line up. If you need true macro (not to be confused with close up photography) then it's a great choice. For anything else, the 50-140 is going to offer more flexibility and the 90 offers a much more beautiful rendering of a scene—particularly in terms of bokeh. (I don't mean to sound anti-XF 80mm. I just consider it along with the 56 and 90 to be specialty lenses for anyone who is not a committed macro or portrait photographer.)

My reasons for suggesting this lens:

1. As long as it’s not too long for you, iMO, the 90 is a better lens than the 56 (in terms of AF speed, more flattering focal length, creamy backgrounds). (I also have the 56 and think it’s amazing too, so, I’m happy to have and would recommend both if budget allows!)
2. When combined with a macro extension tube, (eg mcex 16), the magnification of the 90 goes to 0.4 (which is just a little bit less than the 60mm macro lens). The downside to not having a dedicated macro lens is the working distance limitation, but it is cool to play around without spending a ton for the 80mm (which is much larger than the 90, and also I don’t like the cateye bokeh on the 80)
3. The lens is also great for indoor zoo exhibits (eg reptile house, mouse house). I brought this to the zoo with me last time and was happy to have it (I also brought my cheap xc 50-230 which is pretty great for the $! I am on the fence about splurging for the 100-400... I don’t need it, but GAS)

The 90 is basically idiot proof for portraits! Sorry for the low res version, but I think you get the idea

Shot with the macro extension tube

At the reptile house at my local zoo!

Basically, it’s a fun lens. So happy I got it last year; wish I got it sooner!

Reskr wrote:

Thank you all again for your ideas. I'm really glad I asked as otherwise I would've just followed the hype surrounding all these lenses and not really considered my actual needs. Checking through my photos over the last two years, I've found maybe a handful of shots over 50mm and an even smaller number of shots where I would've wanted anything approximating 80 or more. My interactions with wildlife tend to be by chance rather than deliberate, and while there is the possibility that I just don't bother trying to take photos outside of my equipment's capabilities, I think I'd be lying to myself if I said I'd use something like the 50-140 or the 80 a lot.

Do you have a deadline?

None, other than the end of the rebate period, but I'm returning to my home country for a few weeks next month and was hoping to purchase the new kit there.

Why can’t you do macro on your 16 1.4? Fuji calls it a wide angle macro lens.

You're absolutely right. I've had some really nice close-up shots with the 16 with really pleasing background blur.

In light of this, would a better path perhaps be to get the 56 to satisfy my desire for a portrait lens,

I would still suggest you don't disregard the 50mm and the 60mm. Both are cheaper, the latter takes stunning portraits, both are lighter and smaller, and with the 60mm you get some macro. The 16mm does go quite close, but keep in mind it actually has just a 0.21:1 magnification. Compared to the 0.5:1 of the 60mm, which can cheaply and easily reach 1:1 with the extension tubes (Which don't really work on the 16mm), the versatility and differences become obvious.

The 16mm is an excellent lens, and I enjoyed having it for the time I did. But I must agree with some forum regulars here who have mentioned that the practice of shooting very close with it to achieve that blur etc. is generally unnecessary.

and to update my body to the XT2 or XT3 to open up cropping room? If so, which would you recommend for someone who rarely takes video? I liked the look of the touch to focus on the XT3, but I'm not sure how much I'd use it as I almost always shoot using the viewfinder. Is the new processor significantly better?

The X-T3 is obviously an upgrade to the X-T2, there's no denying that. Personally, if you can afford it, I would go for the X-T3, as it is more future proof. If money is an issue, then the X-T2 is just as excellent. I don't think it's actually going to make much of a difference to your photography, but you'll be getting firmware updates for a longer time, you'll have faster AF etc etc. If it's a question about choosing between the X-T2 + an extra lens, or just the X-T3, then I'd still argue for the X-T2.

Reskr wrote:

In light of this, would a better path perhaps be to get the 56 to satisfy my desire for a portrait lens, and to update my body to the XT2 or XT3 to open up cropping room? If so, which would you recommend for someone who rarely takes video? I liked the look of the touch to focus on the XT3, but I'm not sure how much I'd use it as I almost always shoot using the viewfinder. Is the new processor significantly better?

X-T30 which has a sports mode? Just a thought.

Regards,

John