Fuji Travel lens advice

[JorisG]

Hi all,

Recently I've been looking out for a new travel lens. I usually take pictures on holidays and days out with the family and I enjoy doing travel photography mostly.

I've owned a x100f since it came out and enjoy it a lot. It's my go-to camera to bring with me when I can't be bothered to bring the whole bag, as I can easily put it into any other backpack, hiking bag or more recently diaper bag. It has the bruises and dents to tell.

Mid 2019 I traded my aging Nikon DSLR for a xE3 as I liked it's small compact size. For this camera I've got the 18-55 kit lens and a seperate 50mm fujicron. I have to say I don't use the kit lens all too often, mostly just bring the camera in one pocket and the 50mm or my 40mm Minolta M Rokkor in the other.

Two issues I've ran into with my current camera's is that while travelling and taking photo's of my kids is that they can sometimes not be versatile enough. The x100f is great, but it's focal length can be annoying for either landscapes or city shots where you legs sometimes can't zoom enough, because there's a tree, rock or house in the way. And while I love the 18-55 kit lens, I'm missing something there. In the past I owned an 18-140 for my Nikon and that was all I needed for travel. I had all I needed in one lens and used the tele range quite often.

So that got me thinking, what lens would suit me best:

• The 18-135, giving me a single lens to bring on trips. Not needing to worry to pack anything else.
• The 16-80, it might not have the large tele range the first one has, but still seems really versatile.
• Stick with the 18-55 and perhaps use my 90mm Minolta M lens if I need something longer.
• Get the 16mm f2.8, it would give me a good landscape lens and the filter thread is the same as my x100f.

Anyone who'd like to give me some advice. I've watched quite a lot of reviews, but sometimes some first hand usage advice is better.

 

[bastibe]

If you're interested, I wrote a comparison of the 18-135 and 16-80 a while ago: https://bastibe.de/2021-10-09-fuji-travel-zooms.html.

In essence, the 18-135 has more tele, but is a bit bigger, may zoom-creep, and has somewhat busy out-of-focus backgrounds. The 16-80 is better built, goes wider, but suffers a bit more from wide angle distortion. They are both very reasonably sharp.

Also, the Tamron 18-300 might be worth a look, too, if you can live with the size/weight, and the weaker image stabilization.

My current choice is the 16-80, paired with the 70-300.

 

[binfch]

Depends a bit.

For urban trips I lately find myself bringing the 10-24 plus either the 33 or the 50. I seldom need a longer length.

For very light hiking trips I bring only the 16/2.8.

Otherwise for landscape I have the 10-24, the 33 and the 70-300 in my backpack.

Cheers

 

[timstahmer]

For single lens trips, I love my 16-80 f4. Although it's a little heavier than the 18-55 that was bundled with my X-T3, it's also more versatile. Excellent OIS.

If I take a second lens, it will depend on the trip. For a longer lens, it's usually the 55-200. If I don't need that kind of reach, I'll toss in the 35 f1.4 which is light, fast, and very sharp. Great on the street in low light.

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

Consider the Tamron 18-300. I’ve been very happy with it as a travel lens. Not only does it have a great focal range, but also very close minimum focusing distance.

Here it is on a trip to Kauai:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65861707

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65861715

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65861721

 

[bienenbernd]

My wife uses the 18-135 zoom and is quite happy with it. 135mm are enough for a lot of situations except wildlife. The rendering in real life is very satisfying. Look for sample pics in galleries. IMO the pics of the 16-80 look slightly more 'synthetic' and somewhat more like those of the small 'fujicrons'.
Combine it with the 14mm for landscape.

 

[Clive99]

I really like the 16-80. Mine is significantly sharper than the 18-135 i had and slightly sharper than my 18-55.

I find it very sharp over the range 18-50. Mine is pretty good at 16 - sharp in the center and VERY occasionally shows smearing only on specific foliage types towards the borders. Nothing that's ever bothered me. The bonus with this lens is that it's an acceptable portrait lens at 80F4. Bokeh is decent for a zoom. I have the XF56F1.2..and it's certainly not in the same league, but it's surprisingly good for a 5xzoom.

 

[Atsel]

16-80 or 18-135 depending on optical quality of particular copy of the lens

I had 16-80 kitted with my X-S10, sold it and bought 18-135

 

[JorisG]

Thanks! Interesting read.

The Tamron looks interesting but might be a little to big for the little xE3

 

[JorisG]

Thanks! Nice photo's. I see you're using it with an xE4. How does it handle? To me it feels like such a big lens on such a small camera could be somewhat unbalanced.

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

Thanks! Nice photo's. I see you're using it with an xE4. How does it handle? To me it feels like such a big lens on such a small camera could be somewhat unbalanced.

Not with the Fujifilm metal grip. It feels like a little mini-SLR (think Canon M-50). It makes a nice, stable combination when using longer focal lengths.

--
Randy

 

[Jimbob21]

In your situation, 16-80 seems like a good choice

 

[Torgut]

My vote goes to the 16-80. It's my own choice and I couldn't be happier. Good optical quality, acceptable size/weight, IS, good range. I love it!

 

[JorisG]

Thanks guys. Guess I'm going to make a trip to the local camera store and try the lenses on my xE3 to see which I like best. From your comments the 16-80 seems to be my favourite for now.