Buying the X-T4 - but which kit lens

Started May 5, 2020 | Discussions
ProfPS Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....
1

Greg7579 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Michael Berg wrote:

Hello Joachim,

Thanks for your comments. And for the review on your site - those are very nice shots for sure.

There seems to be a lot of attention given to the 16-55/2.8 for its sharpness, but I was not so unsatisfied with the kit 18-55 that this alone makes me want to upgrade. But there are many other qualities about the lens that are more appealing. I think the contrast and coating is much better, and something less tangible but affects the colors and the light balance of the shot in a way which is difficult to explain. Some of that is due to post processing of course, but I've noticed in many times across different private web sites and review sites alike.

Anyway - thanks again. More to consider.

Thank you Michael. You are right. There is so much more than just sharpness. It is much sharper than the 18-55 but there are many other qualities that are maybe not so easy to measure like color, contrast and behaviour in difficult light.

One of my favourites Fuji lenses is the 23/1.4. Is it the sharpest lens? No but Bokeh, color, contrast is excellent. To some this is important to others it is not.

I like to think in numbers. So the perfect lens gets 10 to worst gets 1. The 16-55 is a 9, the 18-55 in my eyes is a 5 at best.

I agree. Sometimes a lens is so good and marries up so well with a specific sensor that you get some kind of special "look" to images that can be described by fans as micro-contrast, 3D-Pop, dimensionality, depth, magic, brilliant and special - all terms that can get you in trouble but help describe what we think we see. There is just something about that kind of great glass.

I think the Mighty 16 is that was with Fuji X, along with the 56, 90, 200 and I will go so far as to say the great zoom Brick 16-55. I think the 23, 45, 32-64 and 110 are that way with Fuji GFX. And I think the F1.7 Summilux 28mm fixed lens on the Leica Q2 is another great example of that kind of special combination. We argue about sensors and sensor size a lot but it is the glass that often shines and the combination of certain pairs that cause excitement and even joy.

Nikon has a lens like that too. People talk about it all the time on the Medium Format Board because MF shooters often have high-res top-end FF gear too (and many MF shooters also instead use Fuji X instead of high-res FF as their other system. The Z is very popular and there is this one great lens that everyone talks about. Any Nikon lurkers here want to say what it is?

Same with Sony. There is one new Sony top-end and very expensive lens that Sony guys say turn the alphasevenarefour into a magic time machine of extraordinary capability. Any of you many Sony guys who read this Board cruising for opportunities care to tell us peons what lens I'm talking about? 😎 This is your opportunity to shine.

Nikon's Z 24-70 f2.8 is an excellent lens and my personal benchmark for standard zooms. However, so far, that and its little f4 sister have been the only lenses for the Z system that've truly been impressive. Fuji's line-up is, on the whole, a lot more fun and rewarding to explore.

Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,777
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

ProfPS wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Michael Berg wrote:

Hello Joachim,

Thanks for your comments. And for the review on your site - those are very nice shots for sure.

There seems to be a lot of attention given to the 16-55/2.8 for its sharpness, but I was not so unsatisfied with the kit 18-55 that this alone makes me want to upgrade. But there are many other qualities about the lens that are more appealing. I think the contrast and coating is much better, and something less tangible but affects the colors and the light balance of the shot in a way which is difficult to explain. Some of that is due to post processing of course, but I've noticed in many times across different private web sites and review sites alike.

Anyway - thanks again. More to consider.

Thank you Michael. You are right. There is so much more than just sharpness. It is much sharper than the 18-55 but there are many other qualities that are maybe not so easy to measure like color, contrast and behaviour in difficult light.

One of my favourites Fuji lenses is the 23/1.4. Is it the sharpest lens? No but Bokeh, color, contrast is excellent. To some this is important to others it is not.

I like to think in numbers. So the perfect lens gets 10 to worst gets 1. The 16-55 is a 9, the 18-55 in my eyes is a 5 at best.

I agree. Sometimes a lens is so good and marries up so well with a specific sensor that you get some kind of special "look" to images that can be described by fans as micro-contrast, 3D-Pop, dimensionality, depth, magic, brilliant and special - all terms that can get you in trouble but help describe what we think we see. There is just something about that kind of great glass.

I think the Mighty 16 is that was with Fuji X, along with the 56, 90, 200 and I will go so far as to say the great zoom Brick 16-55. I think the 23, 45, 32-64 and 110 are that way with Fuji GFX. And I think the F1.7 Summilux 28mm fixed lens on the Leica Q2 is another great example of that kind of special combination. We argue about sensors and sensor size a lot but it is the glass that often shines and the combination of certain pairs that cause excitement and even joy.

Nikon has a lens like that too. People talk about it all the time on the Medium Format Board because MF shooters often have high-res top-end FF gear too (and many MF shooters also instead use Fuji X instead of high-res FF as their other system. The Z is very popular and there is this one great lens that everyone talks about. Any Nikon lurkers here want to say what it is?

Same with Sony. There is one new Sony top-end and very expensive lens that Sony guys say turn the alphasevenarefour into a magic time machine of extraordinary capability. Any of you many Sony guys who read this Board cruising for opportunities care to tell us peons what lens I'm talking about? 😎 This is your opportunity to shine.

Nikon's Z 24-70 f2.8 is an excellent lens and my personal benchmark for standard zooms. However, so far, that and its little f4 sister have been the only lenses for the Z system that've truly been impressive. Fuji's line-up is, on the whole, a lot more fun and rewarding to explore.

I agree totally with you.  That zoom is the lens I was thinking of and I know a renowned Fuji and Nikon shooter on the MF Board that says that zoom is as good (or better in one sense) than the GF 32-64.  Fuji glass is the best in the world.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Jerry-astro
MOD Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 16,865
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

Geekapoo wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Maybe a fun exercise, Greg, but given the fact that this is, after all, the Fuji Forum, I'm sort of missing the point. I think it's fair to acknowledge that all manufacturers have what some people might call "magic" lenses, and even providing an example or two is just fine. But, I really would prefer that we keep things more focused on Fuji's lineup and gear. An occasional comparison between a Fuji lens and its competitors is fine, but it's my humble opinion that a broader "whose lenses are magic" exercise here seems to wandering well OT.

Although gear can be very important, I think it less about the magic lens or magic sensor and more about the magic skills (or good eye) of the photographer. People throw money at gear with the hope of taking better pictures but instead should focus more on the process. The good news is that Fuji has an exceptional ecosphere of bodies/lenses..in general, hard to go wrong. Very enabling.

That's an excellent point that often gets lost here, because this is, after all, a gear forum.  The wonderful images we see every day here are enabled by some terrific gear, but that only plays a very secondary role to the talented photographers who create and share them.

-- hide signature --

Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR +1 more
ProfPS Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

Greg7579 wrote:

ProfPS wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Michael Berg wrote:

Hello Joachim,

Thanks for your comments. And for the review on your site - those are very nice shots for sure.

There seems to be a lot of attention given to the 16-55/2.8 for its sharpness, but I was not so unsatisfied with the kit 18-55 that this alone makes me want to upgrade. But there are many other qualities about the lens that are more appealing. I think the contrast and coating is much better, and something less tangible but affects the colors and the light balance of the shot in a way which is difficult to explain. Some of that is due to post processing of course, but I've noticed in many times across different private web sites and review sites alike.

Anyway - thanks again. More to consider.

Thank you Michael. You are right. There is so much more than just sharpness. It is much sharper than the 18-55 but there are many other qualities that are maybe not so easy to measure like color, contrast and behaviour in difficult light.

One of my favourites Fuji lenses is the 23/1.4. Is it the sharpest lens? No but Bokeh, color, contrast is excellent. To some this is important to others it is not.

I like to think in numbers. So the perfect lens gets 10 to worst gets 1. The 16-55 is a 9, the 18-55 in my eyes is a 5 at best.

I agree. Sometimes a lens is so good and marries up so well with a specific sensor that you get some kind of special "look" to images that can be described by fans as micro-contrast, 3D-Pop, dimensionality, depth, magic, brilliant and special - all terms that can get you in trouble but help describe what we think we see. There is just something about that kind of great glass.

I think the Mighty 16 is that was with Fuji X, along with the 56, 90, 200 and I will go so far as to say the great zoom Brick 16-55. I think the 23, 45, 32-64 and 110 are that way with Fuji GFX. And I think the F1.7 Summilux 28mm fixed lens on the Leica Q2 is another great example of that kind of special combination. We argue about sensors and sensor size a lot but it is the glass that often shines and the combination of certain pairs that cause excitement and even joy.

Nikon has a lens like that too. People talk about it all the time on the Medium Format Board because MF shooters often have high-res top-end FF gear too (and many MF shooters also instead use Fuji X instead of high-res FF as their other system. The Z is very popular and there is this one great lens that everyone talks about. Any Nikon lurkers here want to say what it is?

Same with Sony. There is one new Sony top-end and very expensive lens that Sony guys say turn the alphasevenarefour into a magic time machine of extraordinary capability. Any of you many Sony guys who read this Board cruising for opportunities care to tell us peons what lens I'm talking about? 😎 This is your opportunity to shine.

Nikon's Z 24-70 f2.8 is an excellent lens and my personal benchmark for standard zooms. However, so far, that and its little f4 sister have been the only lenses for the Z system that've truly been impressive. Fuji's line-up is, on the whole, a lot more fun and rewarding to explore.

I agree totally with you. That zoom is the lens I was thinking of and I know a renowned Fuji and Nikon shooter on the MF Board that says that zoom is as good (or better in one sense) than the GF 32-64. Fuji glass is the best in the world.

Cool. Now to find that elusive perfectly centred 16-55!

BTW I'm also an Olympus shooter - don't discount the quality of their lenses, either. I was happy to give up the Nikon 500mm PF and go back to Olympus' 300mm prime.

Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,777
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

Jerry-astro wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Maybe a fun exercise, Greg, but given the fact that this is, after all, the Fuji Forum, I'm sort of missing the point. I think it's fair to acknowledge that all manufacturers have what some people might call "magic" lenses, and even providing an example or two is just fine. But, I really would prefer that we keep things more focused on Fuji's lineup and gear. An occasional comparison between a Fuji lens and its competitors is fine, but it's my humble opinion that a broader "whose lenses are magic" exercise here seems to wandering well OT.

Although gear can be very important, I think it less about the magic lens or magic sensor and more about the magic skills (or good eye) of the photographer. People throw money at gear with the hope of taking better pictures but instead should focus more on the process. The good news is that Fuji has an exceptional ecosphere of bodies/lenses..in general, hard to go wrong. Very enabling.

That's an excellent point that often gets lost here, because this is, after all, a gear forum. The wonderful images we see every day here are enabled by some terrific gear, but that only plays a very secondary role to the talented photographers who create and share them.

It comes up time and time again.  Why do we obsess on gear when what really matters is how good of a photographer you are and the "eye."  (Well, this is a camera gear forum.)

I think buying top gear has made me a better photographer but that is just me.  A lot of that has to do with motivation and just wanting to get out and shoot more and learn continuously and try to improve on your weaknesses.

I think the way Geek described that is very good.  Well done.

By the way, I think the best photographer in the world right now is a kid in Bangladesh that shot for several years with an old Canon digital rebel.  I think somebody I know on the MF Board who is wealthy and a great photographer found that kid and bought him a new camera this year.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,777
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

ProfPS wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

ProfPS wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Michael Berg wrote:

Hello Joachim,

Thanks for your comments. And for the review on your site - those are very nice shots for sure.

There seems to be a lot of attention given to the 16-55/2.8 for its sharpness, but I was not so unsatisfied with the kit 18-55 that this alone makes me want to upgrade. But there are many other qualities about the lens that are more appealing. I think the contrast and coating is much better, and something less tangible but affects the colors and the light balance of the shot in a way which is difficult to explain. Some of that is due to post processing of course, but I've noticed in many times across different private web sites and review sites alike.

Anyway - thanks again. More to consider.

Thank you Michael. You are right. There is so much more than just sharpness. It is much sharper than the 18-55 but there are many other qualities that are maybe not so easy to measure like color, contrast and behaviour in difficult light.

One of my favourites Fuji lenses is the 23/1.4. Is it the sharpest lens? No but Bokeh, color, contrast is excellent. To some this is important to others it is not.

I like to think in numbers. So the perfect lens gets 10 to worst gets 1. The 16-55 is a 9, the 18-55 in my eyes is a 5 at best.

I agree. Sometimes a lens is so good and marries up so well with a specific sensor that you get some kind of special "look" to images that can be described by fans as micro-contrast, 3D-Pop, dimensionality, depth, magic, brilliant and special - all terms that can get you in trouble but help describe what we think we see. There is just something about that kind of great glass.

I think the Mighty 16 is that was with Fuji X, along with the 56, 90, 200 and I will go so far as to say the great zoom Brick 16-55. I think the 23, 45, 32-64 and 110 are that way with Fuji GFX. And I think the F1.7 Summilux 28mm fixed lens on the Leica Q2 is another great example of that kind of special combination. We argue about sensors and sensor size a lot but it is the glass that often shines and the combination of certain pairs that cause excitement and even joy.

Nikon has a lens like that too. People talk about it all the time on the Medium Format Board because MF shooters often have high-res top-end FF gear too (and many MF shooters also instead use Fuji X instead of high-res FF as their other system. The Z is very popular and there is this one great lens that everyone talks about. Any Nikon lurkers here want to say what it is?

Same with Sony. There is one new Sony top-end and very expensive lens that Sony guys say turn the alphasevenarefour into a magic time machine of extraordinary capability. Any of you many Sony guys who read this Board cruising for opportunities care to tell us peons what lens I'm talking about? 😎 This is your opportunity to shine.

Nikon's Z 24-70 f2.8 is an excellent lens and my personal benchmark for standard zooms. However, so far, that and its little f4 sister have been the only lenses for the Z system that've truly been impressive. Fuji's line-up is, on the whole, a lot more fun and rewarding to explore.

I agree totally with you. That zoom is the lens I was thinking of and I know a renowned Fuji and Nikon shooter on the MF Board that says that zoom is as good (or better in one sense) than the GF 32-64. Fuji glass is the best in the world.

Cool. Now to find that elusive perfectly centred 16-55!

BTW I'm also an Olympus shooter - don't discount the quality of their lenses, either. I was happy to give up the Nikon 500mm PF and go back to Olympus' 300mm prime.

Olympus is outstanding.  I am routing fore them big in this crises.  They are having some difficulties.

I think your worry about bad 16-55 copies is overblown.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
ProfPS Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

Greg7579 wrote:

ProfPS wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

ProfPS wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Michael Berg wrote:

Hello Joachim,

Thanks for your comments. And for the review on your site - those are very nice shots for sure.

There seems to be a lot of attention given to the 16-55/2.8 for its sharpness, but I was not so unsatisfied with the kit 18-55 that this alone makes me want to upgrade. But there are many other qualities about the lens that are more appealing. I think the contrast and coating is much better, and something less tangible but affects the colors and the light balance of the shot in a way which is difficult to explain. Some of that is due to post processing of course, but I've noticed in many times across different private web sites and review sites alike.

Anyway - thanks again. More to consider.

Thank you Michael. You are right. There is so much more than just sharpness. It is much sharper than the 18-55 but there are many other qualities that are maybe not so easy to measure like color, contrast and behaviour in difficult light.

One of my favourites Fuji lenses is the 23/1.4. Is it the sharpest lens? No but Bokeh, color, contrast is excellent. To some this is important to others it is not.

I like to think in numbers. So the perfect lens gets 10 to worst gets 1. The 16-55 is a 9, the 18-55 in my eyes is a 5 at best.

I agree. Sometimes a lens is so good and marries up so well with a specific sensor that you get some kind of special "look" to images that can be described by fans as micro-contrast, 3D-Pop, dimensionality, depth, magic, brilliant and special - all terms that can get you in trouble but help describe what we think we see. There is just something about that kind of great glass.

I think the Mighty 16 is that was with Fuji X, along with the 56, 90, 200 and I will go so far as to say the great zoom Brick 16-55. I think the 23, 45, 32-64 and 110 are that way with Fuji GFX. And I think the F1.7 Summilux 28mm fixed lens on the Leica Q2 is another great example of that kind of special combination. We argue about sensors and sensor size a lot but it is the glass that often shines and the combination of certain pairs that cause excitement and even joy.

Nikon has a lens like that too. People talk about it all the time on the Medium Format Board because MF shooters often have high-res top-end FF gear too (and many MF shooters also instead use Fuji X instead of high-res FF as their other system. The Z is very popular and there is this one great lens that everyone talks about. Any Nikon lurkers here want to say what it is?

Same with Sony. There is one new Sony top-end and very expensive lens that Sony guys say turn the alphasevenarefour into a magic time machine of extraordinary capability. Any of you many Sony guys who read this Board cruising for opportunities care to tell us peons what lens I'm talking about? 😎 This is your opportunity to shine.

Nikon's Z 24-70 f2.8 is an excellent lens and my personal benchmark for standard zooms. However, so far, that and its little f4 sister have been the only lenses for the Z system that've truly been impressive. Fuji's line-up is, on the whole, a lot more fun and rewarding to explore.

I agree totally with you. That zoom is the lens I was thinking of and I know a renowned Fuji and Nikon shooter on the MF Board that says that zoom is as good (or better in one sense) than the GF 32-64. Fuji glass is the best in the world.

Cool. Now to find that elusive perfectly centred 16-55!

BTW I'm also an Olympus shooter - don't discount the quality of their lenses, either. I was happy to give up the Nikon 500mm PF and go back to Olympus' 300mm prime.

Olympus is outstanding. I am routing fore them big in this crises. They are having some difficulties.

I think your worry about bad 16-55 copies is overblown.

I hope so - I've had a bit of bad luck there. First an XH1 that needed tuning, then two copies of the 16-55 that were off on the left hand side. Only slightly, but especially noticeable in the type of reed landscape I like doing when not travelling.

Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,777
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

Jerry-astro wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I agree. Sometimes a lens is so good and marries up so well with a specific sensor that you get some kind of special "look" to images that can be described by fans as micro-contrast, 3D-Pop, dimensionality, depth, magic, brilliant and special - all terms that can get you in trouble but help describe what we think we see. There is just something about that kind of great glass.

I think the Mighty 16 is that was with Fuji X, along with the 56, 90, 200 and I will go so far as to say the great zoom Brick 16-55. I think the 23, 45, 32-64 and 110 are that way with Fuji GFX. And I think the F1.7 Summilux 28mm fixed lens on the Leica Q2 is another great example of that kind of special combination. We argue about sensors and sensor size a lot but it is the glass that often shines and the combination of certain pairs that cause excitement and even joy.

Nikon has a lens like that too. People talk about it all the time on the Medium Format Board because MF shooters often have high-res top-end FF gear too (and many MF shooters also instead use Fuji X instead of high-res FF as their other system. The Z is very popular and there is this one great lens that everyone talks about. Any Nikon lurkers here want to say what it is?

Same with Sony. There is one new Sony top-end and very expensive lens that Sony guys say turn the alphasevenarefour into a magic time machine of extraordinary capability. Any of you many Sony guys who read this Board cruising for opportunities care to tell us peons what lens I'm talking about? 😎 This is your opportunity to shine.

Maybe a fun exercise, Greg, but given the fact that this is, after all, the Fuji Forum, I'm sort of missing the point. I think it's fair to acknowledge that all manufacturers have what some people might call "magic" lenses, and even providing an example or two is just fine. But, I really would prefer that we keep things more focused on Fuji's lineup and gear. An occasional comparison between a Fuji lens and its competitors is fine, but it's my humble opinion that a broader "whose lenses are magic" exercise here seems to be wandering well OT.

Jerry I agree with you and I was not trying to start a lens war.  This is our beloved Fuji Board and it is not to include a lot of Fuji GFX talk,.  But that is getting even more difficult than 18 months ago when GFX really started blasting off.  GFX is such a major part of the Fuji core strategy now that it effects everything they do.  Fuji X remains the main part of that long-term strategy, but it is closely tied to GFX in many ways.

What I mean is Fuji owns APSC and made absolute hard-core decisions not to go FF a long time ago.  I think it was brilliant.  They also literally own the high-end with GFX.  By doing this they paint a target on their backs and forehead with Sony, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic.  Even Leica....  Those FF warfare participants are not happy with this Fuji strategy and they attach Fuji APSC and MF all at one and they do so relentlessly.  They use the same tactic both directions - up and down.  They ridicule down to APSC, and they at the same time claim they are as good as GFX!  This is constant and unrelenting and it is nonsense if you ask me.  They actually help Fuji with this tactic in ways that I won't get into here.  It is a lot of free advertising for Fuji and proves that the Fuji strategy is winning.  Remember - this  is the Fuji Board!

I don't blame them.  It is a legitimate tactic.  It is business.  And one must remember that while they do that they are putting out some outstanding FF products!  I mean really enticing stuff.  Fuji APSC is the digital sweet spot and Fuji is winning big with it and GFX up there on top.  So the the ridicule and attacks on Fuji APSC will never stop.  It is part of the scene.  Same way up to GFX.  Same exact thing.  It is a threat to the FF "standard."

I understand why the Fuji Board does not include GFX and I agree.  I didn't 18 months ago at first but I do now.  The user base would just be too broad and unmanageable - from one end of the vast spectrum to the absolute other end.  But it is getting very difficult to talk about Fuji as a business and the direction they are going without considering X in relation to GFX and discussing both parts.

It is also impossible not to discuss Sony, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic on the Fuji Board.  (I hope they all survive and thrive!)  But I agree we have to be careful and not get carried away.  That is why we have great moderators and like Chris knows on the MF Board, if I stress a point that is an irritant I will reverse course immediately, and you can also edit or delete any post I make and I don't care at all.

What I said above deserves its own thread and in the old days I would have started one on it.  But I don't want to create a stir and few people will read this buried nugget.   I don't think I haver started a thread in the 6 weeks I have been back on the Fuji Board.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
JNR
JNR Veteran Member • Posts: 4,091
Re: Buying the X-T4 - but which kit lens

jjz2 wrote:

JNR wrote:

I have no qualms with the 16-55 in terms of IQ. Modern "bag of primes" that was the well-earned designation of the Pentax 35-105 f/3.5 a few decades ago - except the 16-55 is much better.

And, like so many of us who adopted Fuji for very specific reasons, I will never own one. I'm done with large, heavy lenses (except for the rare need for a very long lens)... so what would be the best option for pro quality kit zoom in the era of IBIS?

If you go back about four decades, the most under-rated ahead of its time zoom kit lens that no one bought (except me - actually twice after the first one was dropped) was the Tokina 24-40 f/2.8. Small, sharp, and versatile (FF film)... UWA to normal - decent wide open. Pentax kind of tried to match it with the APSc 20-40 Limited, but that was not the right range - and the lens wasn't as good as the price was high.

So, Fuji should step out a bit on the design plank and go with a 16-30 (roughly) at f/2.8 - or f/3.2 if size is still an issue. Don't try to make a pro quality zoom into a portrait lens - just give us great IQ from 24mm equivalent to normal perspective... Really, that would be a great achievement. With the image quality of the XC15-30 (mechanics and aperture limits notwithstanding) - this doesn't strike me as a daunting challenge. I'd be first in line.

Not a bad idea. the 35-70 2.8 was very popular in Nikonland for a long time... Everybody just dealt with the reduced focal range, but that saved size and still gave you great images.

You have the right idea. Way back, I shot a cheap, small Tokina 35-70 f/4 until it literally fell apart... It was a fine little lens because it was OK even wide open. And that was long before the 24-40 existed.

-- hide signature --

JNR

 JNR's gear list:JNR's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR Phase One Capture One Pro Pentax K-01 Pentax K-3 +21 more
astonehouse
astonehouse Regular Member • Posts: 302
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....
1

ProfPS wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Michael Berg wrote:

Hello Joachim,

Thanks for your comments. And for the review on your site - those are very nice shots for sure.

There seems to be a lot of attention given to the 16-55/2.8 for its sharpness, but I was not so unsatisfied with the kit 18-55 that this alone makes me want to upgrade. But there are many other qualities about the lens that are more appealing. I think the contrast and coating is much better, and something less tangible but affects the colors and the light balance of the shot in a way which is difficult to explain. Some of that is due to post processing of course, but I've noticed in many times across different private web sites and review sites alike.

Anyway - thanks again. More to consider.

Thank you Michael. You are right. There is so much more than just sharpness. It is much sharper than the 18-55 but there are many other qualities that are maybe not so easy to measure like color, contrast and behaviour in difficult light.

One of my favourites Fuji lenses is the 23/1.4. Is it the sharpest lens? No but Bokeh, color, contrast is excellent. To some this is important to others it is not.

I like to think in numbers. So the perfect lens gets 10 to worst gets 1. The 16-55 is a 9, the 18-55 in my eyes is a 5 at best.

I agree. Sometimes a lens is so good and marries up so well with a specific sensor that you get some kind of special "look" to images that can be described by fans as micro-contrast, 3D-Pop, dimensionality, depth, magic, brilliant and special - all terms that can get you in trouble but help describe what we think we see. There is just something about that kind of great glass.

I think the Mighty 16 is that was with Fuji X, along with the 56, 90, 200 and I will go so far as to say the great zoom Brick 16-55. I think the 23, 45, 32-64 and 110 are that way with Fuji GFX. And I think the F1.7 Summilux 28mm fixed lens on the Leica Q2 is another great example of that kind of special combination. We argue about sensors and sensor size a lot but it is the glass that often shines and the combination of certain pairs that cause excitement and even joy.

Nikon has a lens like that too. People talk about it all the time on the Medium Format Board because MF shooters often have high-res top-end FF gear too (and many MF shooters also instead use Fuji X instead of high-res FF as their other system. The Z is very popular and there is this one great lens that everyone talks about. Any Nikon lurkers here want to say what it is?

Same with Sony. There is one new Sony top-end and very expensive lens that Sony guys say turn the alphasevenarefour into a magic time machine of extraordinary capability. Any of you many Sony guys who read this Board cruising for opportunities care to tell us peons what lens I'm talking about? 😎 This is your opportunity to shine.

Nikon's Z 24-70 f2.8 is an excellent lens and my personal benchmark for standard zooms. However, so far, that and its little f4 sister have been the only lenses for the Z system that've truly been impressive. Fuji's line-up is, on the whole, a lot more fun and rewarding to explore.

Nikon has certainly made it interesting if you're in the market for a high quality, fast, professional zoom. From everything I've read their f/4 Z mount zoom compares very favourably to the 16-55, which I assume means the Nikon f/2.8 surpasses it?

 astonehouse's gear list:astonehouse's gear list
Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR Fujifilm 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ +1 more
MedicineMan999
MedicineMan999 Senior Member • Posts: 2,300
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....

So subjective, but as a Sony shooter my pick for magic would be the FE24/1.4.

 MedicineMan999's gear list:MedicineMan999's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-3 Panasonic FZ1000 Sony RX100 V Sony RX100 VI +61 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,777
Re: Calling all Nikon Z and Alphasevenarefour fans....
1

If I went Sony it would be one of my first purchases.  I have heard all about that fine lens.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Marcos Villaroman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,348
I'm Late to This Thread; When You Buy X-T4 You Get One Chance...

Michael Berg wrote:

-for your comments and opinions. So many of you recommend the 16-55/2.8, which is indeed an amazing lens - and no doubt the most useful of the bunch on an X-T4 with the new IBIS system.

I'll have to decide if I want to splurge the extra cash or get a cheap 18-55/2.8-4 which is light weight and absolutely fine optically.

If you are patient, wait for the X-T4 bundled with either a 16-80 or 18-55. You get significant discounts buying either zoom when bundled with the body. That's the only way a new 18-55 would ever make financial sense.

16-80 vs. 18-55: I would go with the 16-80. It is currently my favorite travel lens as I don't need a really long zoom in most situations and so bringing the 16-80 lets me leave my 55-200 or 50-140 at home or in the hotel room.

The 18-55 is a very good kit zoom in a very small and light package. It better be since it goes for $699 when purchased separately.  $699 is TOO EXPENSIVE for what it does; I'd rather save more money and buy something closer to an end game lens.

Because how can I afford the 16-55 when I also want to get the 50-140 at some point?

It is not a question of 16-55 or 50-140. It is a question of which order you buy them. Think annual photography gear budget and plan long term. It took me years to build up my lens collection.

Unless you always travel with a dedicated photo backpack, there will be times when the 50-140 is too big and heavy. That's where buying a 55-200 can make sense.  My 55-200 goes on more vacations.  My 50-140 is what I use for events.

When I bought the 16-55, I understood that f/2.8 and lack of OIS meant I might have to really crank up the ISO or use an external flash (bounced). No problem for me since there's plenty of event type situations where this is perfectly acceptable; I did that for years with a Canon 5D III and 24-70/2.8L II.  In exchange, I got a constant f/2.8 zoom that will work fine shot at wide open and over its entire focal range.

When I combined the 16-55 with an X-H1's IBIS --- that became my favorite combination.

So in short:

  1. If you can wait for the X-T4 with bundled lens (June 2020?), buy the 16-80 as a travel lens or single zoom lens with more reach.
  2. If you can't wait for the bundle, buy the 16-55 (aka brick). It will feel solid in your hands and serve you well.
  3. Another note: if you feel you gotta get the 18-55, buy it used later.  LensAuthority.com (which sells gear from Lensrentals.com) will sell you one with glass rated "exceptional" for $390).
 Marcos Villaroman's gear list:Marcos Villaroman's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-H1 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +62 more
Alan_Hogg Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: No question
2

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Simply get the 16-55 and report back. The only ones who think that the 16-55 is only a little better than the 18-55 never shot with the 16-55. Everybody who changed to the 16-55 knows how much better this lens is. It's like night and day.

Hi Joachim

This is simply not true. I have read many posts about people questioning the quality of 16-55 photos. I owed one myself for 12 months and eventually gave up on it in favour of the 18-55 which was equally good except at the 55 mm end and even then the difference was marginal in A3+ prints. So I for one would not call getting the 16-55 a no-brainer. Perhaps my 18-55 is extra good and the 16-55 I had was mediocre, who knows?

Alan

Hamilton, New Zealand.

 Alan_Hogg's gear list:Alan_Hogg's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +4 more
Jostian
Jostian Veteran Member • Posts: 4,585
Re: No question

Alan_Hogg wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Simply get the 16-55 and report back. The only ones who think that the 16-55 is only a little better than the 18-55 never shot with the 16-55. Everybody who changed to the 16-55 knows how much better this lens is. It's like night and day.

Hi Joachim

This is simply not true. I have read many posts about people questioning the quality of 16-55 photos. I owed one myself for 12 months and eventually gave up on it in favour of the 18-55 which was equally good except at the 55 mm end and even then the difference was marginal in A3+ prints. So I for one would not call getting the 16-55 a no-brainer. Perhaps my 18-55 is extra good and the 16-55 I had was mediocre, who knows?

Alan

Hamilton, New Zealand.

For me there was a notable difference, but is it worth the massive price difference? for me it was but for others maybe not. That being said I thought the 18 55 was the best kit lens (across all the systems I've used), but for me the difference was around 15 to 20% (agricultural I know) plus I wanted the weather sealing, here in South Africa the weather changes on a dime, and I've been caught in the rain with non weather sealed gear, and it didnt always work out ok

-- hide signature --
 Jostian's gear list:Jostian's gear list
Sony a9 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III +4 more
Joachim Gerstl
Joachim Gerstl Veteran Member • Posts: 8,643
Re: No question

Alan_Hogg wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Simply get the 16-55 and report back. The only ones who think that the 16-55 is only a little better than the 18-55 never shot with the 16-55. Everybody who changed to the 16-55 knows how much better this lens is. It's like night and day.

Hi Joachim

This is simply not true. I have read many posts about people questioning the quality of 16-55 photos. I owed one myself for 12 months and eventually gave up on it in favour of the 18-55 which was equally good except at the 55 mm end and even then the difference was marginal in A3+ prints. So I for one would not call getting the 16-55 a no-brainer. Perhaps my 18-55 is extra good and the 16-55 I had was mediocre, who knows?

Alan

Hamilton, New Zealand.

There is not absolute truth. Some people appreciate the difference some don't. Not all people are the same. The 16-55 is significantly better than the 18-55 and I'm not talking about sharpness. Sharpness is one aspect of many.

It's like high end audio. Everybody recognises better sound quality. Our ears are the same. It's just a question if someone is willing to spend that money or not. But to say all sounds more or less the same no matter if you spend $1.000 or $50.000 is nonsense.

-- hide signature --
 Joachim Gerstl's gear list:Joachim Gerstl's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +8 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,777
Re: No question

Alan_Hogg wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Simply get the 16-55 and report back. The only ones who think that the 16-55 is only a little better than the 18-55 never shot with the 16-55. Everybody who changed to the 16-55 knows how much better this lens is. It's like night and day.

Hi Joachim

This is simply not true. I have read many posts about people questioning the quality of 16-55 photos. I owed one myself for 12 months and eventually gave up on it in favour of the 18-55 which was equally good except at the 55 mm end and even then the difference was marginal in A3+ prints. So I for one would not call getting the 16-55 a no-brainer. Perhaps my 18-55 is extra good and the 16-55 I had was mediocre, who knows?

Alan

Hamilton, New Zealand.

Hey Alan - I have been reading this Board since the day the 16-55 was announced and I don't think anyone has ever said the 18-55 is as good as the 16-55.  Not even close, and that 18-55 is a good little lens.

You are also perhaps the only person who has even insinuated that the 16-55 might be mediocre.

The 16-55 is a world-class zoom.  It is superb.  In my opinion, Fuji makes the best glass on the market and the 16-55 is one of their very best lenses.

So I don't know what you saw on your copy of the Brick, how you shot it or whatever, but the nice little 18-55 is nowhere near in its same league.

Hey but we are allowed to disagree about the quality if a lens.  There just never has been much disagreement on the 16-55.  I was the guy who made fun of that lens for two years early on and I'm the guy who named it the Brick.

But I was just having some fun with the size of the lens and was mad that it didn't have OIS.  I never questioned its IQ and sharpness.  Then two years later I bought it and it became my favorite lens.

Hey Alan - PM me when NZ is semi-open for tourists. My wife and I want to fly to Christ Church, rent a car and travel the South Island for a month and we want to do it early as it opens and before other tourists start getting brave and mobbing the place.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Jerry-astro
MOD Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 16,865
Umm, not really

Alan_Hogg wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Simply get the 16-55 and report back. The only ones who think that the 16-55 is only a little better than the 18-55 never shot with the 16-55. Everybody who changed to the 16-55 knows how much better this lens is. It's like night and day.

Hi Joachim

This is simply not true. I have read many posts about people questioning the quality of 16-55 photos. I owed one myself for 12 months and eventually gave up on it in favour of the 18-55 which was equally good except at the 55 mm end and even then the difference was marginal in A3+ prints. So I for one would not call getting the 16-55 a no-brainer. Perhaps my 18-55 is extra good and the 16-55 I had was mediocre, who knows?

Alan

Hamilton, New Zealand.

I have owned both lenses, but replaced the 18-55 with the 16-55 years ago. My own experience (and frankly most others documented here over the last few years) vastly differed from yours, which raises the question as to whether the copy of the 16-55 you had was acceptable, or perhaps had issues. Even setting aside the obvious advantages of constant f/2.8 aperture, I found the end-to-end IQ of the 16-55 to be far more consistent than the 18-55, and, particularly on the long end, hardly "marginal" as you put it.

So, IMHO, if the cost difference is not a major barrier or concern, then I would absolutely suggest that, in comparing the two, the 16-55 really is a "no brainer" if optimum (and consistent across its range) IQ is of paramount importance. And, FWIW, I've seen very similar opinions shared here for years, which is what actually gave me the incentive to replace the 18-55 I had purchased years prior. I have zero regrets about that decision.

-- hide signature --

Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR +1 more
caesarb Contributing Member • Posts: 604
Re: The Brick

No doubt whatsoever in my mind: 16-55!

Here are some reasons why:

https://www.prophotonut.com/2015/04/30/zoom-or-prime-lenses-for-portraits-with-fuji-x/

Alan_Hogg Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: Umm, not really

I have owned both lenses, but replaced the 18-55 with the 16-55 years ago. My own experience (and frankly most others documented here over the last few years) vastly differed from yours, which raises the question as to whether the copy of the 16-55 you had was acceptable, or perhaps had issues. Even setting aside the obvious advantages of constant f/2.8 aperture, I found the end-to-end IQ of the 16-55 to be far more consistent than the 18-55, and, particularly on the long end, hardly "marginal" as you put it.

Hi Folks

OK I give up. But I am definitely not the only one who has owned a mediocre 16-55. See the current ‘Fuji 16-55 2.8 experience’ thread. I don’t think it hurts for prospective buyers to be reminded that variations are alive and well even within high end and highly recommended lenses. I have 4 excellent Fuji primes as well as two zooms so can recognise good (and not so good) lenses when I use them ( in case anyone thinks my bad experience on the 16-55 was due to lack of other lenses to compare with).

Greg. Happy to show you around my neck of the woods if you come to NZ. Just google me for contact details. I live only 10 km from Hobbiton so great not having hordes of tourists crawling along our rural road!

Hamilton, New Zealand.

 Alan_Hogg's gear list:Alan_Hogg's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads