Travel Zoom - Do I need one?

I've just got myself a used X-E3 and 27mm pancake for wandering the streets and I now need a lightweight standard zoom lens for when I'm visiting unknown (usually European) cities whilst her indoors lies around by the pool/beach/bar.

It would be used for general daytime touristy stuff with a particular emphasis on streetlife and architecture.

I'm going round in circles considering the XC 16-50 v the XF 18-55, but I also own the little Lumix LX100 with its 24-75 (eq) zoom.

I'd rather travel light with just one camera and a couple of lenses, but could use the X-E3 / 27 together with the LX100 for zoom.

Does anyone have any experience of the image quality of the LX100 versus the two Fuji kit lenses?

The LX100 has a smaller m43 sensor, but considerably faster aperture (f1.7 - 2.7) than the Fuji kit lenses.

Any help/advice appreciated.

Ash

I think it depends on what you prefer. I like shooting with primes, but I have one zoom, the 18-55, because it is so versatile and has good image quality. The fact that the 18-55 is still relatively compact is also a plus.

By the way, in terms of DOF, the aperture range of the LX100 is close to the 18-55.

Thanks lexvo.

That info on the relative DOF really helps.

I too prefer primes but find I need a zoom for architecture when visiting somewhere new.

With the aim of keeping things minimal, getting the 18-55 seems to make sense.

Architash wrote:

The LX100 has a smaller m43 sensor, but considerably faster aperture (f1.7 - 2.7) than the Fuji kit lenses. Ash

First, lensed don't have sensors, cameras have.  The Lumix is designed for M43, the image circle won't cover the APS-C sensor of the X-E3.

The 18-55 is a high quality versatile lens.  Get it and the 55-200 and you'll have 90% of your needs covered.

What won't be covered is wide angle. The perfect compliment to the above lenses would be the 10-24, but it is expensive. As an alternate I use the Samyang 12mm f2. It's inexpensive but high quality.

My travel kit is the 12mm, 16mm f1.4, 18-55 and 55-200.

XC lenses are good quality, but with a smaller (slower) maximum aperture.  That can make low light photography problematic.

Depends what you want... I like primes so I'm fine with going with one prime for awhile, then switching for awhile in a diff mode of shooting... I usually went between say 20mm or a 24mm lens for architecture/cityscapes... then 35mm ish for street shooting.

I have 15-45 now which is very light, but is slow for quick changes in focal length to get a shot...but will probably trade up to get the 14mm and the 18-55 eventually for a better zoom and for a video lens.

I'll prob be done then with the glass I need.

I have the 35 1.2 for indoors or night shots, but find I rarely use it. My last vacation I had it with me and didn't use it once. 2.8 on the 27 and bumping the iso to 3200 is still usually fast enough for me I've found and looks fine as well. So the 35 1.2 is used more for creative/bokeh shots than it is for low light situations.

The simplest solution would be the 16-55 2.8 and that would handle almost everything.

I personally never need anything long while traveling or anything else for that matter, if I were to add an additional zoom, it would be an UWA. We all have different interests though.

Depend on where you're going and what you're planning to shoot. If you go to Europe, you will be shooting a lot of streets and architectures so you can easily get away without a zoom lens. A 12mm (or 14), 23mm and/or 35mm should be enough. If you travel to somewhere in which there are many places you can't zoom with your feet, a 55-200 is essential.

I will be traveling to Asia next month and plan to bring 12mm, 35mm and 55-200 with me.

The Lx100’s optics, if we use APS-C’s equivalent will be 16-50mm F2.3-3.7. It’s OIS is 2 stops, is same as the XC 16-50mm, while the XF18-55mm have 4 Stops. So if you are ok with 12Mp and is likely not taking any videos, the Lx100 is just half a smartphone heavier than the XF 18-55mm, sounds better for your use.

And since you have emphasis on streetlife and architecture, maybe get a XF14, for the 2 extra mm on the wide end, for your E3, in case you need the extra wideness. Or wait for the 6 stops OIS 16-80mm F4.

Architash wrote:

I've just got myself a used X-E3 and 27mm pancake for wandering the streets and I now need a lightweight standard zoom lens for when I'm visiting unknown (usually European) cities whilst her indoors lies around by the pool/beach/bar.

It would be used for general daytime touristy stuff with a particular emphasis on streetlife and architecture.

I'm going round in circles considering the XC 16-50 v the XF 18-55, but I also own the little Lumix LX100 with its 24-75 (eq) zoom.

I'd rather travel light with just one camera and a couple of lenses, but could use the X-E3 / 27 together with the LX100 for zoom.

Does anyone have any experience of the image quality of the LX100 versus the two Fuji kit lenses?

The LX100 has a smaller m43 sensor, but considerably faster aperture (f1.7 - 2.7) than the Fuji kit lenses.

Any help/advice appreciated.

Ash

I have 2 travel scenarios due to my X-T3, & X-E3, along with a good selection of Fuji lenses to choose from. Sometimes I will travel with one or the other, sometimes both, all depending on the circumstances of the trip.

For your X-E3 and keeping things light and uncomplicated a three, possibly four lens travel kit makes sense. Otherwise just two lenses will do. I would also consider something wider such as the 14/2.8. The 16-55/2.8 is a great lens, but it is quite big on the X-E3, and the XF 18-55 is a good match with good performance.

One lens kit: X-E3 + 18-55.

Two lens kit from the following: X-E3 + 27, +23/2.0, +14/2.8, + 18-55

Three/four lens kit from the following: X-E3 +14/2.8, +23/2.0, +18-55, +55-200. ...and your 27.

Then there is always the new XF 16-80/4.0, but that will be big on the X-E3.

...and don't forget a spare battery, or two.

Thank you all for your advice and recommendations - I now need  to lie down in a darkened room and absorb it all!

Architash wrote:

I've just got myself a used X-E3 and 27mm pancake for wandering the streets and I now need a lightweight standard zoom lens for when I'm visiting unknown (usually European) cities whilst her indoors lies around by the pool/beach/bar.

It would be used for general daytime touristy stuff with a particular emphasis on streetlife and architecture.

I'm going round in circles considering the XC 16-50 v the XF 18-55, but I also own the little Lumix LX100 with its 24-75 (eq) zoom.

I'd rather travel light with just one camera and a couple of lenses, but could use the X-E3 / 27 together with the LX100 for zoom.

Does anyone have any experience of the image quality of the LX100 versus the two Fuji kit lenses?

The LX100 has a smaller m43 sensor, but considerably faster aperture (f1.7 - 2.7) than the Fuji kit lenses.

Any help/advice appreciated.

Ash

I had an original LX100 and was not happy with the image quality compared to my X-T10 and 18-55. I have since invested more into the Fuji X system, having an X-T3 and an X-E3 and several lenses...

Based on my experience, for travel, for you, I would highly recommend adding the little XC15-45. While the X-E3 / XC15-45 combo is a bit larger than the LX100, they are almost exactly the same weight, and neither is pocketable; unless a large jacket pocket, which both will fit. And, the 15-45 delivers amazing IQ!

There are some disadvantages of the XC15-45, mostly in its aperture range. However, higher ISO's are notably better on the Fuji 3rd gen sensors compared to the dated LX100 M43 sensor, so you can get better images at ISO 6400 than on the LX100 at 3200, likely even better than at 1600... so you can often gain back the lost stops of light from the lens with the better ISO performance (not always...).

BUT, you can also use your 27mm lens. And, you can add a lightweight and cheap Rokinon 12mm / F2 for interior shots. Or the underrated 60mm F2.4 for portraits and macro. Way more flexibility with the X-E3.

I am very happy with my X-E3 / XC15-45 as a lightweight travel combo. (Of course, I'm even more happy with my X-T3 / XF16-55 when IQ is most important... but obviously a big jump up in price and size).

To me, an easy answer, and I'm confident recommending the XC15-45, as that's exactly what I did.

Hope that answers your question!

If you are happy with the LX100 - no.

Architash wrote:

I've just got myself a used X-E3 and 27mm pancake for wandering the streets and I now need a lightweight standard zoom lens for when I'm visiting unknown (usually European) cities whilst her indoors lies around by the pool/beach/bar.

It would be used for general daytime touristy stuff with a particular emphasis on streetlife and architecture.

I'm going round in circles considering the XC 16-50 v the XF 18-55, but I also own the little Lumix LX100 with its 24-75 (eq) zoom.

I'd rather travel light with just one camera and a couple of lenses, but could use the X-E3 / 27 together with the LX100 for zoom.

Does anyone have any experience of the image quality of the LX100 versus the two Fuji kit lenses?

The LX100 has a smaller m43 sensor, but considerably faster aperture (f1.7 - 2.7) than the Fuji kit lenses.

Any help/advice appreciated.

Ash

I would get the brand new 16-80mm F4 over the XF18-55mm. Wider, longer, better and weather resistant.

I hear someone saying "but it's too big" but frankly, it's really small for what it is.

I used to own an LX100, loved its travel convenience but not its image quality and have since switched to an LX100 II as my secondary cam. The difference in IQ is marked and I now love the LX100 II for both its excellent travel form factor and pretty darned good IQ. There's definitely some HUGE pluses for the LX in terms of being able to tuck it into any coat pocket (or tossed into any little bag for that matter) that will be a godsend in the myriad of situations that travel brings. In Europe specifically, there were many instances in museums and galleries where they did not allow my bigger cameras and had to store them in lockers but when I flashed the LX, they nodded and let me in! It's also much easier on my conscience to bring it out at crowded, cramped restaurants and bars without it feeling like an intrusion to my family, other patrons, or the owners of the establishments. No matter how good my other cameras get in future, I have a feeling I will always travel with the LX as part of my gear for this very reason.

I don't have an X-E3 but recently purchased an X-T2 and I don't think I would bring it absolutely everywhere when traveling, no matter what lens I have on it.

As for low light, indoors and night capability, there are two things to consider:

Lens-wise, I think once you work out the equivalence, you might be surprised how well the LX fares. According to this site: https://mmcalc.com/ you will find that the LX's f/1.4-f/2.8 is better than the two zooms you have picked for the X-E3.

Sensor-wise, the X-E3 wins, no doubt about it.

Architash wrote:

I've just got myself a used X-E3 and 27mm pancake for wandering the streets and I now need a lightweight standard zoom lens for when I'm visiting unknown (usually European) cities whilst her indoors lies around by the pool/beach/bar.

It would be used for general daytime touristy stuff with a particular emphasis on streetlife and architecture.

The 18-55 at times is both too tight and too short, I personally own the 14/2.8 which is a stellar lens and very small, on the other end I am tempted by a 55-200 for my "light" sufficient light/casual shooting but I love primes and being an X-Pro1 shooter I won't invest onto such a body unless I decide to remain with Fuji, same your dilemma, a light travel/hike setup without to give up on quality...

I'm going round in circles considering the XC 16-50 v the XF 18-55, but I also own the little Lumix LX100 with its 24-75 (eq) zoom.

I don't know the 16-50 but own and use, from time to time, the 18-55 and it is way more than just honest as a kit lens and for the price, I guess that each and every Fuji owner has or has had one, get it!

I'd rather travel light with just one camera and a couple of lenses, but could use the X-E3 / 27 together with the LX100 for zoom.

Two cameras, two charges, two sets of batteries/accessories... really?

Any help/advice appreciated.

Ash

I had been thinking something similar lately.

Most of what I shoot is with the 23/2. Then I have the “outlier” focal lengths ... some with the wider end of my 18-55, and a very few at the long end of my 55-230.

After a recent trip, I considered replacing the 18-55 and 55-230 with an LX100 or Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II. I would just leave the 23/2 on my X-E3.

However, I love the files I get from my X-E3, and it didn’t make sense to have an ILC and not change lenses. As Giovanni mentioned, there’s another whole set of batteries, etc. to fuss with on a second camera. Plus, another set of images to process. Switching lenses doesn’t sound so bad.

I’ve also looked at the 16-80 to replace my 18-55 and 55-230, but sometimes I really need that 230mm.

koweb wrote:

Architash wrote:

I've just got myself a used X-E3 and 27mm pancake for wandering the streets and I now need a lightweight standard zoom lens for when I'm visiting unknown (usually European) cities whilst her indoors lies around by the pool/beach/bar.

It would be used for general daytime touristy stuff with a particular emphasis on streetlife and architecture.

I'm going round in circles considering the XC 16-50 v the XF 18-55, but I also own the little Lumix LX100 with its 24-75 (eq) zoom.

I'd rather travel light with just one camera and a couple of lenses, but could use the X-E3 / 27 together with the LX100 for zoom.

Does anyone have any experience of the image quality of the LX100 versus the two Fuji kit lenses?

The LX100 has a smaller m43 sensor, but considerably faster aperture (f1.7 - 2.7) than the Fuji kit lenses.

Any help/advice appreciated.

Ash

I had an original LX100 and was not happy with the image quality compared to my X-T10 and 18-55. I have since invested more into the Fuji X system, having an X-T3 and an X-E3 and several lenses...

Based on my experience, for travel, for you, I would highly recommend adding the little XC15-45. While the X-E3 / XC15-45 combo is a bit larger than the LX100, they are almost exactly the same weight, and neither is pocketable; unless a large jacket pocket, which both will fit. And, the 15-45 delivers amazing IQ!

There are some disadvantages of the XC15-45, mostly in its aperture range. However, higher ISO's are notably better on the Fuji 3rd gen sensors compared to the dated LX100 M43 sensor, so you can get better images at ISO 6400 than on the LX100 at 3200, likely even better than at 1600... so you can often gain back the lost stops of light from the lens with the better ISO performance (not always...).

BUT, you can also use your 27mm lens. And, you can add a lightweight and cheap Rokinon 12mm / F2 for interior shots. Or the underrated 60mm F2.4 for portraits and macro. Way more flexibility with the X-E3.

I am very happy with my X-E3 / XC15-45 as a lightweight travel combo. (Of course, I'm even more happy with my X-T3 / XF16-55 when IQ is most important... but obviously a big jump up in price and size).

To me, an easy answer, and I'm confident recommending the XC15-45, as that's exactly what I did.

Hope that answers your question!

Hi, I would almost go with koweb's view. I have a XE3 and 27/f2.8. For light travel I also had the 15-45 PZ, which delivers great IQ, but which I found frustratingly slow and insensitive to zoom. I traded it for a XC 16-50 MKII. I can see no discernible difference in IQ between the two, but the 16-50 is, for me, far better to handle.

So, a XE3, 27 and 16-50 kit makes a versatile, small, light travel kit that delivers great IQ. Good luck with your choice.

jhorse wrote:

koweb wrote:

Hi, I would almost go with koweb's view. I have a XE3 and 27/f2.8. For light travel I also had the 15-45 PZ, which delivers great IQ, but which I found frustratingly slow and insensitive to zoom. I traded it for a XC 16-50 MKII. I can see no discernible difference in IQ between the two, but the 16-50 is, for me, far better to handle.

So, a XE3, 27 and 16-50 kit makes a versatile, small, light travel kit that delivers great IQ. Good luck with your choice.

Another point is, the 15-45 is only really compact when the camera isn't on... When on, it extends by a good amount.

I'm just using as a stop gap before getting a more expensive wide angle like the 14 probably.

It's zoom functionality kind of sucks.

The 16-80 is a nice range but don't think I'd carrying it around all day an XE body.

jjz2 wrote:

I'm just using as a stop gap before getting a more expensive wide angle like the 14 probably.

I heard there will be a 10mm F2 coming up soon.

It's zoom functionality kind of sucks.

I think it's actually rather useful. It's very light.